text:
Posted tagged 'UN Security Council'
Nikki Haley to UN on North Korea Jan 18, 2018 UN Security Council meeting on non proliferation of Mass Destruction
Nikki Haley to UN on North Korea Jan 18, 2018 UN Security Council meeting on non proliferation of Mass Destruction via YouTube, January 18, 2018
Categories: Assad, Iran - human rights, Iranian missiles, Iranian nukes, Nikki Haley, North Korean missiles, North Korean nukes, Russia, Syria - mass murder, UN Security Council, Weapons of mass destruction - proliferation
Tags: Assad, Iran - human rights, Iranian missiles, Iranian nukes, Nikki Haley, North Korean missiles, North Korean nukes, Russia, Syria - mass murder, UN Security Council, Weapons of mass destruction - proliferation
The UN has its own day of rage over Trump's Jerusalem declaration
The UN has its own day of rage over Trump's Jerusalem declaration | Anne's Opinions, 21st December 2017
The UN continued its shameful tradition vis-à-vis Israel with an emergency session held yesterday in order to denounce Trump's declaration of recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital, and demanding that the US rescind the President's decree.
Outrageously and absurdly, it was Yemen who called for the debate on the grounds that the declarations "threatens peace". This is Yemen which is embroiled in a civil war with tens of thousands of casualties, not to mention massive human rights violations. I guess they would know what peace looks like?
Yemen: "This is a serious threat to stability, peace, and security in the region and the world."
No, they are not referencing the war, cholera, and famine spreading through their own country. Instead, #Jerusalem. pic.twitter.com/GPJCgyMItM
— UN Watch (@UNWatch) December 21, 2017
You can't make this stuff up department: At UN, Yemen ambassador, whose country is simply disintegrating before the world's eyes, says US decision on Jerusalem is serious threat to peace in the region and the world.
— Herb Keinon (@HerbKeinon) December 21, 2017
Ahead of the debate US Ambassador Nikki Haley responded to the UN in kind, issuing threats of "taking names" of those who will vote against the US, in order to reconsider the aid that the US gives them:
At the UN we're always asked to do more & give more. So, when we make a decision, at the will of the American ppl, abt where to locate OUR embassy, we don't expect those we've helped to target us. On Thurs there'll be a vote criticizing our choice. The US will be taking names. pic.twitter.com/ZsusB8Hqt4
— Nikki Haley (@nikkihaley) December 19, 2017
She was given full support by Donald Trump:
"I like the message that Nikki sent yesterday at the United Nations, for all those nations that take our money and then they vote against us at the Security Council, or they vote against us potentially at the assembly," Trump said, commenting on US Ambassador Nikki Haley's statement to UN member states in which she warned of possible retaliation should they support a resolution criticizing Washington's decision.
And then the debate and the vote took place – and it was more shameful and outrageous (there's that word again. I just can't help it when it comes to the UN) than I expected. Here is the final tally:
Final tally of votes at UN debate on Trump's Jerusalem declaration
I am disgusted at the United Kingdom, but despite Theresa May's pro-Israel reputation the Foreign Office does not fully represent her views. And maybe her reputation is not as well-deserved as we think. I expected no better from Germany and France, but it was interesting that the Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary chose to abstain rather than vote with the EU block, as well as Latvia and Romania.
Australia and Canada, traditionally two of Israel's strongest Western allies, hardly covered themselves in glory when they abstained – which is almost as bad as a vote in favour of the resolution.
As to the action on the floor itself, here are some of the speeches against the resolution.
Here is Israel's Ambassador Danny Danon, and I am pleased that he mentioned the outrageous (again) UN Security council Resolution 2334, which was NOT vetoed at the behest of former President Barack Obama, which denounced all Israeli presence in Judea and Samaria and denied any Jewish connection to those areas and to Jerusalem. Here are some highlights:
Addressing the General Assembly, Ambassador Danny Danon harshly criticized the countries supporting the resolution at the urging of the Palestinian Authority and the Palestine Liberation Organization.
"Those who support today's resolution are like puppets pulled by the strings of the Palestinian puppet masters," said Ambassador Danon. "You are like marionettes forced to dance while the Palestinian leadership looks on with glee."
Danon noted the recent rocket attacks from Gaza and went on to say that "violence and terror must never be tolerated." He pointed out that "if this body were really united for peace, it would pass a resolution condemning Palestinian violence."
Earlier in his address, Ambassador Danon displayed a coin from the year 67 CE that was minted during the Jewish revolt against the Romans. Replicas of the coin had been distributed to the UN ambassadors before the vote.
"On this coin is written 'Freedom of Zion,' Danon said. "It proves the ancient connection of Jews to Jerusalem. No UNESCO declaration, no empty speeches, no General Assembly resolution will ever drive us from Jerusalem."
But the star of the show was no doubt the US's intrepid Ambassador Nikki Haley. here is the full text of her speech before the vote:
Thank you, Mr. President. In this meeting, I will not use Council's time to address where a sovereign nation might decide to put its embassy, and why we have every right to do so. I will address a more appropriate and urgent concern.
This week marks the one-year anniversary of the passage of Resolution 2334. On that day, in this Council, in December 2016, the United States elected to abstain, allowing the measure to pass. Now it's one year and a new administration later. Given the chance to vote again on Resolution 2334, I can say with complete confidence that the United States would vote "no." We would exercise our veto power. The reasons why are very relevant to the cause of peace in the Middle East.
On the surface, Resolution 2334 described Israeli settlements as impediments to peace. Reasonable people can disagree about that, and in fact, over the years the United States has expressed criticism of Israeli settlement policies many times.
But in truth, it was Resolution 2334 itself that was an impediment to peace. This Security Council put the negotiations between Israelis and the Palestinians further out of reach by injecting itself, yet again, in between the two parties to the conflict.
By misplacing the blame for the failure of peace efforts squarely on the Israeli settlements, the resolution gave a pass to Palestinian leaders who for many years rejected one peace proposal after another. It also gave them encouragement to avoid negotiations in the future. It refused to acknowledge the legacy of failed negotiations unrelated to settlements. And the Council passed judgment on issues that must be decided in direct negotiations between the parties.
If the United Nations' history in the peace efforts proves anything, it is that talking in New York cannot take the place of face-to-face negotiations between the regional parties. It only sets back the cause of peace, not advance it.
As if to make this very point, Resolution 2334 demanded a halt to all Israeli settlement activity in East Jerusalem – even in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City. This is something that no responsible person or country would ever expect Israel would do. And in this way, Resolution 2334 did what President Trump's announcement on Jerusalem as the capital of Israel did not do: It prejudged issues that should be left in final status negotiations.
Given the chance today, the United States would veto Resolution 2334 for another reason. It gave new life to an ugly creation of the Human Rights Council: the database of companies operating in Jewish communities. This is an effort to create a blacklist, plain and simple. It is yet another obstacle to a negotiated peace. It is a stain on America's conscience that we gave the so-called BDS movement momentum by allowing the passage of Resolution 2334.
To the United Nations' shame, this has been a disproportionately hostile place for the Middle East's most enduring democracy.
The United States refuses to accept the double standard that says we are not impartial when we stand by the will of the American people by moving our US embassy, but somehow the United Nations is a neutral party when it consistently singles out Israel for condemnation.
For decades, Israel has withstood wave after wave of bias in the UN and its agencies. The United States has often stood beside Israel. We did not on December 23, 2016. We will not make that mistake again.
This week marks the one year anniversary of a significant setback for Middle East peace. But the United States has an undiminished commitment to helping bring about final status negotiations that will lead to lasting peace.
Our hand remains extended to both parties. We call on all countries that share this commitment to learn the hard lessons of the past and work to bring Israel and the Palestinian people in good faith to the peace table.
Thank you, very much.
The United States exercised its veto (which it refused to do with Resolution 2334) in order to defeat the resolution. Ms. Haley explained the reason for the veto (at the same link above, scroll down the page):
Here is the full text of her speech: (scroll down the page to the second half):
Thank you, Mr. President.
I have been the proud Representative of the United States at the United Nations for nearly a year now. This is the first time I have exercised the American right to veto a resolution in the Security Council. The exercise of the veto is not something the United States does often. We have not done it in more than six years. We do it with no joy, but we do it with no reluctance.
The fact that this veto is being done in defense of American sovereignty and in defense of America's role in the Middle East peace process is not a source of embarrassment for us; it should be an embarrassment to the remainder of the Security Council.
As I pointed out when we discussed this topic 10 days ago, I will once again note the features of the President's announcement on Jerusalem that are most relevant here. The President took great care not to prejudge final status negotiations in any way, including the specific boundaries of Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem. That remains a subject to be negotiated only by the parties. That position is fully in line with the previous Security Council resolutions.
The President was also careful to state that we support the status quo regarding Jerusalem's holy sites, and we support a two-state solution if that's what the parties agree to. Again, these positions are fully consistent with the previous Security Council resolutions.
It is highly regrettable that some are trying to distort the President's position to serve their own agendas.
What is troublesome to some people is not that the United States has harmed the peace process – we have, in fact, done no such thing. Rather, what is troublesome to some people is that the United States had the courage and honesty to recognize a fundamental reality. Jerusalem has been the political, cultural, and spiritual homeland of the Jewish people for thousands of years. They have had no other capital city. But the United States' recognition of the obvious – that Jerusalem is the capital and seat of the modern Israeli government – is too much for some.
First, some have threatened violence on the street, as if violence would somehow improve the prospects of peace.
Now today, buried in diplomatic jargon, some presume to tell America where to put our embassy. The United States' has a sovereign right to determine where and whether we establish an embassy. I suspect very few Member States would welcome Security Council pronouncements about their sovereign decisions. And I think of some who should fear it.
It's worth noting that this is not a new American position. Back in 1980, when Jimmy Carter was the American President, the Security Council voted on Resolution 478, which called upon diplomatic missions to relocate from Jerusalem. The United States did not support Resolution 478.
In his remarks, then-Secretary of State Ed Muskie said the following: "The draft resolution before us today is illustrative of a preoccupation which has produced this series of unbalanced and unrealistic texts on Middle East issues."
Specifically, regarding the provision on diplomatic missions in Jerusalem, Secretary Muskie said this: "In our judgment, this provision is not binding. It is without force. And we reject it as a disruptive attempt to dictate to other nations. It does nothing to promote a resolution of the difficult problems facing Israel and its neighbors. It does nothing to advance the cause of peace."
That was in 1980. It is equally true today. The United States will not be told by any country where we can put our embassy.
Buried even deeper in the jargon of this resolution is the accusation that the United States is setting back the prospects of peace in the Middle East. That is a scandalous charge. Those who are making it should consider that it only harms the very Palestinian people they claim to speak for. What does it gain the Palestinian people for their leaders to throw up roadblocks to negotiations?
A "peace process" that is damaged by the simple recognition that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel is not a peace process; it is a justification for an endless stalemate. What does it gain the Palestinian people for some of their leaders to accuse the United States of being hostile to the cause of peace? It gains them nothing, but it risks costing them a great deal.
The United States has done more than any other country to assist the Palestinian people. By far. Since 1994, we have given over $5 billion to the Palestinians in bilateral economic assistance, security assistance, and humanitarian assistance.
The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees operates schools and medical facilities throughout the region. It is funded almost entirely by voluntary contributions. Last year, the United States voluntarily funded almost 30 percent of UNRWA's budget. That's more than the next two largest donors combined. And it's vastly more than some of the members of this Council that have considerable financial resources of their own.
I'll be blunt: When the American people see a group of countries whose total contributions to the Palestinian people is less than one percent of UNRWA's budget – when they see these countries accuse the United States of being insufficiently committed to peace – the American people lose their patience.
I have been to the Palestinian refugee camps the United States supports with their contributions. I have met with men, women, and children. I have advocated on their behalf. I can tell you that their leaders do them no favors by being more open to abandoning peace negotiations than to doing the hard work of seeing them to completion.
The United States has never been more committed to peace in the Middle East. We were committed to it before the President announced our recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and we're committed to it today.
What we witnessed here today in the Security Council is an insult. It won't be forgotten. It's one more example of the United Nations doing more harm than good in addressing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Today, for the simple act of deciding where to put our embassy, the United States was forced to defend its sovereignty. The record will reflect that we did so proudly. Today, for acknowledging a basic truth about the capital city of Israel, we are accused of harming peace. The record will reflect that we reject that outrageous claim.
For these reasons, and with the best interests of both the Israeli and the Palestinian people firmly in mind, the United States votes no on this resolution.
Israel will remain eternally grateful to the United States, led by President Donald Trump and so excellently represented by Ambassador Nikki Haley.
Here is Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu thanking the US for its support:
Israel completely rejects this preposterous resolution. Jerusalem is our capital. Always was, always will be. pic.twitter.com/0FcCtWJTvk
— PM of Israel (@IsraeliPM) December 21, 2017
I do appreciate the fact that a growing number of countries refused to participate in this theater of the absurd. So I appreciate that, and especially I want to again express our thanks to @POTUS Trump and Ambassador Haley, for their stalwart defense of Israel and of the truth.
And Danny Danon reminded us of another shameful and outrageous resolution 42 years ago: the equating of Zionism with racism. Just as that resolution was rescinded 16 years later, so too will all these other shameful debates and resolutions end up in the trash can.
I have no doubt that the day will come when the entire international community will finally recognize Jerusalem as the eternal capital of the State of Israel. 4/4
— Ambassador Danon (@dannydanon) December 21, 2017
Categories: Foreign policy, International Community, Israel - America relations, Jerusalem - status, UN and Trump, UN Security Council
Tags: Donald Trump, Israel, Jerusalem capital of Israel, Lawfare, Nikki Haley, Resolution 2334, UN Security Council
UN Security Council Bashes Trump's Jerusalem Decision
UN Security Council Bashes Trump's Jerusalem Decision, FrontPage Magazine, Joseph Klein, December 11, 2017
(Please see also, Defiant Haley chides fuming Security Council members: 'Change is hard. — DM)
Whichever provisions of Resolution 2334 are legally binding on Israel and all other UN member states, President Trump's December 6th decision does not have any bearing on the sensitive issue of Israeli settlements or on Israel's claims to sovereignty over "East Jerusalem." Thus, invoking this infamous anti-Israeli resolution in the context of President Trump's decision is a red herring.
"Over many years," Ambassador Haley said in her remarks to the Security Council, the United Nations has been one of the world's "foremost centers of hostility towards Israel." The Security Council became a kangaroo court on Friday, turning a perverted version of "international law" against the Trump administration for its just defense of the Jewish state of Israel and Israel's right to choose its own capital as every other member state has the right to do.
On December 6th, President Trump announced his decision to officially recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and to instruct the State Department to begin the process of relocating the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Two days later, at a special meeting of the United Nations Security Council, the other 14 members of the Council, including U.S. allies such as France, the United Kingdom and Italy, ganged up on the United States to condemn President Trump's decision. Allies and adversaries of the U.S., one after the other, claimed that President Trump's decision had defied international consensus on how to achieve a viable two-state solution, violated international law and risked destabilizing the region as well as imperiling the peace process. Bolivia's ambassador was the most strident, demanding that the Security Council take action against President Trump's decision if it wanted to avoid becoming "an occupied territory."
To add insult to injury, the UN ambassadors from five member states of the European Union – the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Sweden and Germany – further criticized President Trump's decision in a joint statement they read following the adjournment of the Security Council meeting. They claimed the decision "is not in line with Security Council resolutions and is unhelpful in terms of prospects for peace in the region."
U.S. Ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, stood her ground in her remarks to the Security Council. She chastised those "countries that lack any credibility when it comes to treating both Israelis and Palestinians fairly." All President Trump had done, she explained, was to formally acknowledge the reality that for nearly 70 years "the city of Jerusalem has been the capital of the State of Israel, despite many attempts by others to deny that reality. Jerusalem is the home of Israel's parliament, president, prime minister, Supreme Court, and many of its ministries. It is simple common sense that foreign embassies be located there."
President Trump's change in American policy to reflect this reality does not mean that the United States has taken a position on the specific boundaries or borders within Jerusalem as a whole. "The specific dimensions of sovereignty over Jerusalem are still to be decided by the Israelis and the Palestinians in negotiations," Ambassador Haley said.
Notably, President Trump's announcement specifically called for maintaining the status quo at the holy sites in the Old City of Jerusalem. There is not even the slightest hint that the U.S. would be moving its embassy to the Old City or to any part of "East Jerusalem." However, the critics of President Trump's decision refuse to allow for the possibility of a U.S. embassy located anywhere at all in the entire city of Jerusalem – even in what is now referred to as "West Jerusalem," which is an undisputed section of Jerusalem.
"Israel, like all nations, has the right to determine its capital city," Ambassador Haley said. "In virtually every country in the world, U.S. embassies are located in the host country's capital city. Israel should be no different."
The principal objections to President Trump's decision are that it sets back the chances for a peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict based on the two-state solution, it is apt to destabilize and trigger violence in the region and beyond, and it violates international law.
The first two objections can be given short shrift. For seventy years, there has been no peace because the Palestinians have consistently pursued an absolutist policy rejecting the idea of a Jewish state living side by side with an Arab state. The Palestinians and their Arab state neighbors rejected the partition recommended in UN General Assembly Resolution 181 in 1947. The Palestinians did not declare an independent state of their own when they had the chance. They embarked instead on a campaign of violence. Hamas, Palestinian President Abbas's coalition partner, still calls for Israel's destruction. Abbas, who has incited sectarian violence and rewards terrorists, spurned a peace offer from Israel in 2008 that would have resulted in Israel's withdrawal from virtually all of the West Bank and the relinquishment of Israeli control of Jerusalem's Old City in favor of placing it under international control. Abbas has refused to this day to agree to direct unconditional negotiations with Israel, a position which long preceded President Trump's decision.
As for the violence that critics of President Trump's decision seek to lay at his feet, violence has indeed erupted, not only in the Middle East but elsewhere including Europe. However, President Trump's decision is being used as a pretext for such behavior that Palestinians and Islamists throughout the world have displayed time and again. We have seen excuses for violence ranging from cartoons and an obscure anti-Muslim video to the installation of metal detectors at the Temple Mount (despite the presence of metal detectors at mosques in other countries). Foreign policy and national security decisions cannot be held hostage to mob rule. Giving in to threats of a violent reaction will only encourage the increased use of such threats to thwart other controversial decisions.
Turning to the objection to President Trump's decision based on "international law," the critics have claimed that his declaration recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital and decision to move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem violate a whole host of UN General Assembly and Security Council resolutions. Sovereignty over Jerusalem, they have argued, is a "final status" issue to be negotiated between the parties themselves. They have argued this position while also holding on to the characterization of "East Jerusalem" as part of the "Occupied Palestinian Territories" in the various UN resolutions they cite. In short, the Israel bashers have no problem exploiting UN resolutions to pre-determine the final status of "East Jerusalem," which contains the holy sites of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, as belonging to the Palestinians.
Moreover, the UN resolutions that the critics of President Trump's decision rely upon to support their objections on "legal" grounds do little to help their case. As a matter of international law, there is nothing in the United Nations Charter that grants the General Assembly any power that would render its resolutions, declarations, or recommendations legally binding or enforceable. In any case, the Palestinians and their Arab state neighbors, including Jordan, which illegally seized and annexed the Old City of Jerusalem in 1948, completely rejected the original UN two-state partition resolution, Resolution 181. Their attempt to invoke that resolution or subsequent General Assembly resolutions now to rationalize their position on international law grounds is specious at best.
President Trump's critics also point for support of their position to UN Security Council resolutions stating that East Jerusalem is part of the "Occupied Palestinian Territories," declaring Israel's settlements in East Jerusalem to be illegal, concluding that Israel's assertion of sovereignty over a unified Jerusalem is null and void, and calling upon member states to withdraw their embassies from the Holy City of Jerusalem. These resolutions were not explicitly adopted in the exercise of the Security Council's Chapter VII enforcement powers, which is significant in determining whether they are legally binding unless they are expressly framed as "decisions" of the Council or, at the very least, use such words as "demand" in the applicable provisions. Words and phrases such as "calls upon," "urges," "reaffirms," "underlines," and "stresses" are deemed insufficient by legal experts in the field to reflect an intention on the part of the Security Council to create a legally binding obligation on any of the member states of the UN.
Many of the ambassadors speaking at Friday's Security Council meeting invoked Security Council Resolution 478 as a principal basis for declaring President Trump's decision to be in violation of international law. However, Resolution 478 used the word "decides" only in the context of refusing to recognize Israel's "Basic Law" declaring Israeli sovereignty over the "Holy City of Jerusalem" and "such other actions by Israel that, as a result of this law, seek to alter the character and status of Jerusalem." Resolution 478 then "calls upon" (not demands) the member states "to accept this decision," which means it is up to each member state to agree or not. Moreover, Resolution 478 only "calls upon" the member states "that have established diplomatic missions at Jerusalem to withdraw such missions from the Holy City." Again, this does not constitute a legally binding obligation. Moreover, it would not appear to apply explicitly to the western sector of Jerusalem, outside of the Old City where the holy sites of Judaism, Christianity and Islam are located.
President Trump's decision in no way is inconsistent with Resolution 478. To the contrary, as discussed above, President Trump specifically called for maintaining the status quo at the holy sites in Jerusalem and left it to Israel and the Palestinians to negotiate the final status of the boundary lines within Jerusalem as a whole. President Trump's announcement of the intent to relocate the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, particularly if relocated outside of the boundaries of the Old City as it most certainly will be, would not be enjoined by Resolution 478's express provisions, which are not legally binding in any event. Moreover, it is way too premature to consider the legality of such a move since it is likely to take three years or more to occur.
The critics also have referred to Security Council Resolution 2334, passed at the end of last year after the Obama administration decided to abstain rather than exercise its veto power. Resolution 2334 principally addresses Israeli settlements in the occupied territories, which, as in previous resolutions, are said to include "East Jerusalem." It states that "the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law." Although most of the resolution's operative paragraphs use non-binding words and phrases such as "calls upon," the resolution does once refer to the Security Council's "demand that Israel immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and that it fully respect all of its legal obligations in this regard." (Emphasis added)
Categories: Jerusalem - status, Nikki Haley, U.S. Embassy move to Jerusalem, UN and Israel, UN Security Council
Tags: Jerusalem - status, Nikki Haley, U.S. Embassy move to Jerusalem, UN and Israel, UN Security Council
Defiant Haley chides fuming Security Council members: 'Change is hard'
Defiant Haley chides fuming Security Council members: 'Change is hard', Times of Israel, December 8, 2017
US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley delivers a speech during a United Nations Security Council meeting on December 8, 2017 in New York City (Stephanie Keith/Getty Images/AFP)
In a Wednesday address from the White House, Trump defied worldwide warnings and insisted that after repeated failures to achieve peace a new approach was long overdue, describing his decision to recognize Jerusalem as the seat of Israel's government as merely based on reality.
The move was hailed by Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and by leaders across much of the Israeli political spectrum. Trump stressed that he was not specifying the boundaries of Israeli sovereignty in the city, and called for no change in the status quo at the city's holy sites.
At an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council on Friday, the US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley said President Donald Trump knew his decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital would raise "questions and concerns," but that he took it to advance peace between Israel and the Palestinians.
"I understand the concerns that members have in calling this session," Haley said. "Change is hard."
Washington's move left it isolated as one after another fellow UN Security Council members — Russia, France, the UK, China, Egypt, Jordan and a host of others — condemned the announcement.
The debate unfolded at a largely symbolic emergency meeting of the council — no vote on a resolution was planned, as the US has veto power — two days after Trump reversed two decades of US policy on the holy city.
The meeting was convened by eight of the 14 non-US members of the council. It seemed a vivid show of the discord triggered by Trump's announcement, which included plans to move the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
Asked what he expected to come from the UN meeting, one diplomat said: "Nothing." Another said the session would show US "isolation" on the issue.
US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley speaks with Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations Danny Danon before a United Nations Security Council on December 8, 2017 in New York City. (Stephanie Keith/Getty Images/AFP)
Haley said Washington was more committed to peace "than we've ever been before — and we believe we might be closer to that goal than ever before."
Haley said anyone who used Washington's actions as a pretext for violence was "only showing" they were not partners for peace.
She noted that past Israeli-Palestinian agreements have been signed on the White House lawn, and that if there is a new agreement, there is "a good likelihood" it will be signed there as well, "because the United States has credibility of both sides."
At the meeting, the UN coordinator for the Middle East peace process warned Security Council members of a risk of "violent escalation."
Nickolay Mladenov warned that if the Israeli-Palestinian conflict isn't resolved, "it risks being engulfed in the vortex of religious radicalism throughout the Middle East."
A Palestinian protestor uses a sling shot to throw stones towards Israeli security forces during clashes after the Friday prayers in the city center of the West Bank town of Hebron on December 8, 2017. (AFP/Hazem Bader)
Mladenov spoke of "a serious risk" of "a chain of unilateral actions" that would push the goal of peace further away. He pointed to the latest clashesbetween Palestinian protesters and Israeli forces and some calls for a new intifada, or uprising.
Mladenov also reiterated Secretary-General Antonio Guterres's words that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict must be resolved through direct negotiations and that "there is no Plan B to the two-state solution."
Palestinian envoy Riyad Mansour spoke of the "global consensus" against Washington's recognition and said Trump's decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital and ultimately move the US embassy there should be reconsidered and rescinded.
Palestinian envoy to the UN Riyad Mansour at the UN Security Council, December 8, 2017 (United Nations)
"There can be no just and lasting solution to the Palestine question without a just solution" to Jerusalem, he said, calling the city "the heart of Palestine."
Israel's ambassador to the UN Danny Danon told the council the Trump declaration was "a positive step."
He called on council members to "send a clear message there is never an excuse for violence. Violence must never be used as a threat."
Israel's Ambassador to the UN Danny Danon holds up an ancient coin from Jerusalem during his address to the UN Security Council debate on Jerusalem, December 8, 2017 (UN Photo/Eskinder DebebeIsrael)
Danon said the recognition of Jerusalem "should serve as a reality check for the Palestinians and for the nations of the world" that "recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital is a critical and necessary step for peace."
Danon held up an ancient coin from Jerusalem during his speech, and said that King David made Jerusalem his capital 3,000 years ago.
The British ambassador to the UN, Matthew Rycroft, said flat out that Britain disagreed with Trump's move.
"These decisions are unhelpful for the prospects for peace in the region," Rycroft said.
He urged Trump to now come up with detailed proposals for an Israel-Palestinian peace accord, a goal which has eluded the US and the international community for decades.
Categories: Jerusalem - status, Trump and Israel, Trump and Jerusalem, U.S. Embassy move to Jerusalem, UN Security Council
Tags: Jerusalem - status, Trump and Israel, Trump and Jerusalem, U.S. Embassy move to Jerusalem, UN Security Council
UN Passes Mega-Ultra Toughest-Ever North Korea Sanctions, Again
UN Passes Mega-Ultra Toughest-Ever North Korea Sanctions, Again, PJ Media, Claudia Rosett, September 12, 2017
(Eliminating Kim Kimchi Jong-un is not a viable solution. China won't permit regime change and, if China did, there is no reason to assume that Kim's replacement would be an improvement. Please see also, UN Security Council passes new sanctions against North Korea. Frank Gaffney offers some good ideas and they don't involve more useless sanctions. — DM)
The fifteen members of the Security Council are seen voting in favor of the new sanctions at a United Nations Security Council meeting regarding nuclear non-proliferation in light of the September 3rd test explosion of a missile-capable nuclear bomb by the Democratic Peoples' Republic Of Korea (DPRK), at UN Headquarters in New York, NY, USA on September 11, 2017. At the meeting, Council members voted upon a draft Resolution calling for increased economic sanctions against the DPRK. Resolution 2375 was unanimously adopted by the 15 members of the Council. (Photo by Albin Lohr-Jones)(Sipa via AP Images)
Unless the real mission behind these sanctions is to help achieve the only real remedy — which is to take down the Pyongyang regime (not bargain with it) — then beware.
Yet again, the United Nations Security Council has voted unanimously for a resolution imposing the toughest-ever sanctions on North Korea. This round, responding to North Korea's test of what Pyongyang claimed was a hydrogen bomb, goes by the label of Resolution 2375, and marks the ninth time over the past 11 years that the UN Security Council — voting unanimously — has approved new sanctions in response to North Korean nuclear and missile tests.
Each round has been tougher than the last. In March, 2016 for instance, following North Korea's fourth nuclear test, the UN passed Resolution 2270, which former Ambassador Samantha Power described as "so much tougher than any prior North Korea resolution." Less than nine months later, following North Korea's fifth nuclear test, came UN Resolution 2321, hailed by CNN as "Toughest UN sanctions yet… ."
You get the idea. This parade of tough-tougher-toughest and tougher-than-toughest UN sanctions has been going on since the UN Security Council in 2006, following North Korea's first nuclear test, unanimously approved Resolution 1718, imposing sanctions that President Bush described at the time as "swift and tough."
I'm all in favor of being ultra-tough on North Korea (make that mega-ultra-jumbo-tough, even better). This latest round aims to constrict North Korea's oil supply, ban its textile imports, curtail its smuggling and end its revenues from joint ventures and laborers working abroad. That's on top of the web of previous strictures.
But by now one might begin to suspect that sanctions, however tough, are not going to stop Kim Jong Un's nuclear missile program. It's a bad sign that these UN resolutions, which routinely begin by listing the relevant previous resolutions, have now achieved a degree of layering that resembles portions of such monstrosities as the Affordable Care Act. The UN has not yet posted the full text of this latest resolution, #2375. But a reasonable proxy can be found in the prior resolution, passed on August 5. Just add one more layer:
"Recalling its previous relevant resolutions, including resolution 825 (1993), resolution 1540 (2004), resolution 1695 (2006), resolution 1718 (2006), resolution 1874 (2009), resolution 1887 (2009), resolution 2087 (2013), resolution 2094 (2013), resolution 2270 (2016), resolution 2321 (2016), and resolution 2356 (2017), as well as the statements of its President of 6 October 2006 (S/PRST/2006/41), 13 April 2009 (S/PRST/2009/7) and 16 April 2012 (S/PRST/2012/13),"
There are two basic problems here.
The first problem is that sanctions are not an airtight proposition. They are more like a sieve than an impermeable barrier. They leak. They erode. For sanctions violators, part of the game is to set up new fronts and devise new deceptions; part is to wait until the immediate crisis passes, and enforcement starts to flag. North Korea has long experience at evading and adapting to sanctions. So do its chief patrons, Russia and China. So does its partner-in-proliferation, Iran, and Iran's mascot, Syria.
And whatever the reach and coercive financial power of the mighty U.S., it has not sufficed to date to persuade scores of UN member states to comply with the list of sanctions above. The UN fields a Panel of Experts on North Korea sanctions who have been turning in terrific, regular and hefty reports on compliance — or lack of compliance — by UN member states.
Three years ago, in their 2014 report, these experts noted that the problem was not lack of sanctions measures, but lack of compliance:
"At the present time, the Panel does not see new measures as necessary in order to further slow the prohibited programmes of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, to dissuade it from engaging in proliferation activities or to halt its trade in arms and related materiel. Rather, the Panel believes that Member States already have at their disposal adequate tools."
The UN requires its member states to submit "implementation reports" on how they plan to comply with UN sanctions. Out of the UN's 193 member states, scores of countries simply don't do it. Just last week, in an interim report dated Sept. 5, the UN Panel of Experts noted that for the two sanctions resolutions passed last year, the number of non-reporting states remains "significant" — as in, roughly half the UN membership.
Of course, even when countries do submit their implementation reports, that's no guarantee that North Korea will be deprived of goods for its proliferation programs. For instance, while China has dutifully been filing the required reports to the UN, the Panel of Experts, in their Sept. 5 report, mentioned that North Korea's military parade this past April included missiles transported on three-axle trucks that had a Chinese manufacturer's logo on the fuel tank.
In response to the Panel, Chinese authorities provided an array of comments. They posited that such trucks, exported from 2010-2014, were "not under embargo of the Security Council." They said the exporter and manufacturer of the trucks could not be identified, due to lack of "Vehicle Identification Number and other relevant information." And they noted that the sales contract "requested explicitly 'the buyer to ensure the civilian use of the trucks and comply with concerned provisions of Chinese laws and Security Council resolutions.' "
Ummm…is that supposed to be reassuring?
For North Korea, yet more sanctions might indeed raise the cost of provisioning its nuclear missile program, and shrink the resources available — at least until the regime finds new ways to adapt. But North Korea's regime has an unswerving record of placing its military and weapons programs above the needs of North Korea's people. It's highly unlikely that UN Security Council Resolution 2375 will persuade Kim to abjure ICBMs and hydrogen bombs, in favor of allocating resources to cold and hungry North Koreans.
Which brings us to the second big problem with these UN resolutions. They all aim, quite explicitly, to bring North Korea back to the bargaining table. This is an idea all too prevalent in Washington as well. In testimony on North Korea to the Senate Banking Committee last week, former Acting Secretary of the Treasury Adam Szubin summed it up, saying that sanctions "are meant to incentivize behavioral change."
Dream on. If North Korea's regime does come to the bargaining table, that might look like a change in behavior. But everything in the record by now should be telling us that North Korea won't be coming to relinquish its nuclear missile program. It will be coming to cash in, again, on the illusions of American diplomats. It will be coming to cash in, yet again, on the blinkered expertise of a host of former U.S. officials now treated as sages of North Korea policy because they were intimately involved in nuclear deals… that failed.
Those bargains, and attempted bargains, stretching back to 1994, helped pave the way to the current crisis of nuclear bombs and intercontinental ballistic missiles in the hands of a totalitarian North Korean regime that threatens and mocks the U.S., aspires to subjugate South Korea, is pushing East Asia toward a nuclear arms race, and doubles as a rogue munitions merchant to the world's worst predators.
On paper, Resolution 2375 might sound like a formula for success, or at least a good move in that direction. Slather more sanctions — the toughest yet! — on North Korea, and hope it leads to a deal. There will now be a new round of Washington conferences, and Op-eds, and reports, and testimony, dissecting and embellishing on the latest sanctions and, when these toughest-ever sanctions turn out to be inadequate to stop Kim's nuclear projects, recommending yet more sanctions. In Washington, it's become an industry unto itself — expanding in tandem in tandem with North Korea's flourishing nuclear program.
Categories: China - North Korea sanctions evasion, China and North Korea, UN and North Korea, UN Security Council
Tags: China - North Korea sanctions evasion, China and North Korea, UN and North Korea, UN Security Council
UN Security Council passes new sanctions against North Korea
UN Security Council passes new sanctions against North Korea, Fox Business News via YouTube, September 11, 2017
As noted in the blurb beneath the video,
Lt. Col. Michael Waltz (Ret.) and Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney on the U.N. implementing new sanctions against North Korea.
Categories: China and North Korea, Japan and North Korea, North Korea - military options, North Korea sanctions, North korean EMP attack, North Korean missiles, North Korean nukes, North Korean satellites, South Korean responses to North Korean threat, UN Security Council
Tags: China and North Korea, Japan and North Korea, North Korea - military options, North Korea EMP attack, North Korea sanctions, North Korean missiles, North Korean nukes, North Korean satellites, South Korean responses to North Korean threat, UN Security Council
Haley: North Korea 'Begging For War'
Haley: North Korea 'Begging For War' NPR, Scott Neuman, September 4, 2017
(Finally, Kim has asked for something we can, and should, give him. — DM)
United Nations U.S. Ambassador Nikki Haley addresses a U.N. Security Council meeting on North Korea, on Monday.
Bebeto Matthews/AP
Updated at 12:05 p.m. ET
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley tells the U.N. Security Council that North Korean leader Kim Jong Un is "begging for war," with the latest nuclear test that Pyongyang says is its first fusion device, a much more powerful weapon than it has exploded in the past.
"Enough is enough. War is never something the United States wants. We don't want it now. But our country's patience is not unlimited," Haley told an emergency session of the 15-member Security Council in New York.
She said that incremental sanctions on North Korea imposed by the Security Council since 2006 had failed to stop Pyongyang's march toward more powerful and dangerous weapons. She said Kim appeared to be "begging for war."
"Despite our efforts the North Korea nuclear program is more advanced and more dangerous than ever," she said.
"We must adopt the strongest possible measures," Haley said.
As NPR's Elise Hu reported on Sunday from Seoul, Pyongyang claims to have successfully tested a hydrogen bomb and said that it had also coupled the the new weapon with one of its long-range intercontinental ballistic missiles.
The U.S. Geological Survey says it detected a 6.3-magnitude "possible explosion" near Sungjibaegam, North Korea, Sunday afternoon that was "located near the sites where North Korea has detonated nuclear [devices] in the past."
Shortly after the announcement out of North Korea, Defense Secretary James Mattis said President Trump wanted to be briefed on the "many" possible military options available to respond.
"We made clear that we have the ability to defend ourselves and our allies, South Korea and Japan from any attack and our commitments among the allies are ironclad," Mattis said. "Any threat to the United States and its territories including Guam or our allies will be met with a massive military response — a response both effective and overwhelming."
As NPR's Geoff Brumfiel reports, North Korea's previous nuclear tests had been in the tens of kilotons range, corresponding roughly to the size of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs that were dropped on those Japanese cities by American bombers at the close of World War II.
By contrast, early estimates of Pyongyang's latest test "are putting [it] in the hundreds of kiloton range," Brumfiel writes.
Sunday's nuclear test — the first since the start of the Trump administration — follows on a series of ballistic missile launches, the latest on Tuesday when Pyongyang fired a missile into waters off Japan's northern Hokkaido island.
South Korea says there are indications that the North is preparing more missile launches including a possible new test of its ICBM, the Hwasong-14, according to the BBC.
A readout released by Seoul of a call Monday between Trump and South Korean President Moon Jae-in, said the leaders "shared views on the fact that the latest provocation was more serious than ones before," and that "the two leaders agreed to rigorously prepare for possibilities of further provocation through the [North Korea]-US combined defense posture in actively seeking response measure to North Korea's provocations."
Categories: Nikki Haley, North Korean H Bomb test, North Korean missiles, UN Security Council
Tags: Nikki Haley, North Korean H Bomb test, North Korean missiles, UN Security Council
Part II: Tough Is Not Enough
Part II: Tough Is Not Enough, 38 North, Joseph Dethomas, September 4, 2017
(In what fantasy world does the author live? He states,
What sort of deployments (strategic systems, missile defense, precision strike conventional weapons, conventional land, sea, special and air forces) would be a function of both military and diplomatic would need to be hammered out in the National Security Council and with regional allies.
It is inconceivable that the UN Security Council, where each permanent member has a veto, would approve any "deployment of significant and visible assets [which] would make it clear to the DPRK that it cannot compete with the US in the nuclear field regardless of the size, scope, pace and duration of that effort." Even were it to happen, North Korea would be told, in advance, how to prepare for whatever America and perhaps our allies will do when North Korea again tests or uses a nuke or missile.
Please see also, North Korea Nuclear Test Puts Pressure on China and Undercuts Xi. — DM)
North Korea Nuclear Test Puts Pressure on China and Undercuts Xi
In Part I of this series, I argued that advocates for "getting tough on North Korea" were prone to adopt inappropriate models for a harsher sanctions regime and to ignore the risk of counterproductive North Korean reactions to such sanctions. This is not an argument for no more sanctions. Given North Korean progress on its ICBM and nuclear weapons capabilities, we remain in an ongoing cycle of actions and reactions that may lead to a major war. A very vigorous political/military effort to contain and eventually eliminate the DPRK nuclear threat is essential now before the tensions and ill-considered rhetoric once again create the risk of the US and North Korea bellowing and stumbling their way into a catastrophic conflict. But sanctions should be only one element of the effort. The final push for a stabilization[1] of the North Korean nuclear and missile issue has to include the following components.
Military Deterrence and Defense
The additional deployment of significant and visible assets would make it clear to the DPRK that it cannot compete with the US in the nuclear field regardless of the size, scope, pace and duration of that effort. What sort of deployments (strategic systems, missile defense, precision strike conventional weapons, conventional land, sea, special and air forces) would be a function of both military and diplomatic would need to be hammered out in the National Security Council and with regional allies. The purpose of these forces would be both to provide diplomatic leverage and to prevent Kim from believing a military gamble would pay off.
Sanctions and Targeted Secondary Sanctions
The sanctions campaign should begin with the enforcement of UNSCRs 2270 and 2371. The initial goal would be to get full compliance with some of the difficult-to-enforce provisions, notably the caps on joint ventures and on North Korean labor exports. To this end, the US should target secondary sanctions on Chinese and other third country entities that are violating the UN resolutions. Rather than seeking to squash every sanctions-evading gnat, it should inflict significant pain on one large and vulnerable entity to have a bracing effect on many more. And, it might well create massive ripple effects if it is a key node in North Korea's sanctions evasion network—for example, Chinese companies outlined in the recent C4ADS report—that are clearly violating UN sanctions and making extensive use of the US banking system. The US may also wish to find a similar target outside the Chinese network of businesses—perhaps one in a friendly Middle Eastern or African country that has chosen to ignore past US efforts to cut connections to Pyongyang. The US should for now avoid steps to coerce others to accept its own definition of sanctions that go beyond the resolutions. It appears that the most recent sanctions by the US Treasury against Chinese, Russian and one Namibian entity, as well as a recent freeze on some aid to Egypt, may fit the model described above.
However, it is unlikely the UN sanctions as currently written will suffice. The US should be building the case now for significant sanctions tightening if North Korea does not shift its current direction. This should best be done in steps, perhaps starting with the change of the labor and investment caps and moving to a full ban as a first iteration with the dusted off version of UNSCR 661 as the final alternative to military conflict. As the risk of conflict moves closer, the US will have to consider when secondary sanctions as a coercive mechanism for third countries needs to be deployed more widely. This is a high-risk enterprise in an already risky situation, but when stacked up against nuclear war in Asia, surely secondary sanctions are preferable.
Many Tracks of Diplomacy
These tough military and sanctions components will do nothing but open the door to miscalculation and war if other "softer" components are ignored or—more likely—mishandled. A stabilization of the Korean nuclear and missile issue is going to require multilateral diplomacy—and only the US has the ability to be at the center of this effort. It cannot subcontract the effort primarily to China. The PRC does not have the entre with some of the players, nor could it speak for the US to the most difficult audience of all: Pyongyang. These rings of diplomatic activity have existed in one form or another for many years, but they will need to be greatly invigorated and placed in the service of a clear set of policy objectives. These rings include:
US-ROK and US-Japan: This ring will need to create a solid front on possible military deterrence force deployments and on a sanctions strategy in the United Nations. The Trump administration appears to be in the middle of such an effort.
US-PRC: This ring is key. It needs to be removed from undisciplined and uncoordinated public commentary and shifted to sustained bilateral dialogue. Washington will need to enlist Chinese assistance both to create sanctions pressure on Pyongyang and to generate multilateral negotiations and a viable US-DPRK diplomatic channel. The US cannot expect pressure without political dialogue and Beijing cannot expect dialogue without real pressure on Pyongyang. The less we hear about the content of this channel (not to mention the US-DPRK channel) in public the better.
UN Security Council: Iraq sanctions failed when P-5 unity in the UNSC failed. The Trump Administration deserves credit for maintaining P-5 unity with the passage of UNSCR 2371, but this will have to be the first of many efforts in the Council.
Six Party (US, ROK, China, Russia, Japan and DPRK): At some point this channel will have to generate the political agreements and the framework for a settlement. There is nothing sacred about this particular forum or format, but something like it will have to be active and available for the formal public structure of a diplomatic settlement.
A direct US-DPRK channel: With one exception in the second term of the George W. Bush administration, the most rapid and extensive progress I have seen in over 28 years of interchange with North Korea over the nuclear issue has always taken place in a US-DPRK bilateral channel. The potential causes of war lie between Washington and Pyongyang. The US would be well advised to put together a small, tight, empowered negotiating team to create a channel for bilateral discussions. If the leak-prone and undisciplined Trump administration could manage to do so without us all hearing about it, so much the better.
Orchestrating this diplomacy will be one of the most complex challenges of the past 50 years. It is unclear whether the US State Department—suffering from several levels of missing leadership, low morale and persistent and unhelpful interference from the White House—is up to the task. But a way will have to be found to perform it if there is to be success on this issue.
Clarity, Discipline and Accountability in Public Commentary
US diplomacy during the recent dust-up with North Korea over its July ICBM tests was clumsy and amateurish: the incendiary rhetoric coming out of the White House needlessly escalated tensions and the uncoordinated and incoherent public messaging sowed confusion among our allies over US goals and intentions. That said, it did signal that the United States was approaching the limit of its patience over North Korean missile developments. Nevertheless, a policy vacuum continues to exist.
The United States has not made clear to Pyongyang, the American public, or its allies how it would respond to North Korean nuclear intimidation or aggression. There may be a place for strategic ambiguity in deterrence policy under some circumstances but not strategic incoherence. As a result of the loose and imprecise US rhetoric and mixed messaging, all parties are groping for an understanding of what might trigger nuclear conflict in Korea and beyond. To end this confusion and uncertainty, an authoritative figure such as the Secretary of State or Defense should give a policy speech which lays out for the American public, our allies, the Chinese and the North Koreans what American nuclear deterrence policy is vis-a-vis North Korea—and then the White House needs to discipline itself and other agencies to hew scrupulously to this script in all their public messaging on the policy.
The speech or the press backgrounding around it should also designate a single, high level official who would be accountable for the North Korean issue; this is simply not an issue that can survive current White House tong wars, presidential pique or bureaucratic backstabbing. This speech will also be the best place to signal that toughness will be accompanied by dialogue. It needs to open the door to real negotiations with a concrete proposal. This could be done through a proposal to reopen Six Party Talks or through a prearranged signal to Pyongyang that certain words in the speech are an invitation to a private authoritative back-channel discussion.
Goals and Trade Bait
The Obama administration's efforts on North Korea foundered on a couple of rocks. The first was its inability or unwillingness to commit political capital to an issue that was highly controversial, with a very small (or nonexistent) solution set and a timeline that was less pressing than the Iran nuclear issue. The second was that the only goal for resolving or even trying to resolve the crisis that could garner consensus support was complete DPRK denuclearization. However, given the Obama administration's unwillingness to invest fully in the issue, the White House's highly constrained room for political maneuvering and Pyongyang's commitment to its nuclear strategy, the goal of denuclearization became an obstacle to even starting a process for dealing with Pyongyang's nuclear and missile progress.
Denuclearization remains a worthy goal and it is the only one that preserves the global nonproliferation regime and the long-term security of the US and its allies. But the first goal of renewed diplomatic engagement needs to be more focused and urgent: to stabilize peace in Northeast Asia and to prevent a stumble into a nuclearized second Korean War. Achieving this goal, by definition, will require North Korea to put limits on its ICBM program, which is the essential immediate need for American security policy. There are interim steps that would be of value in preserving peace and security. The parties might wish to develop mechanisms to prevent accidental war. It might also be a worthy tactical goal to create geographic limits on North Korean missile testing targets, thus putting US territories like Guam and Japanese waters off limits. The US might, at some point, trade off a particular sanction in return for a firm ICBM testing ban or moratorium or a halt to nuclear tests.
At no point should the US take ultimate denuclearization off the table, but it is necessary first to identify immediate steps to stabilize what is a dangerous dynamic. The two great dangers to pursuing more modest, immediate goals will be the accusation the US has "accepted" a nuclear DPRK and the concessions the DPRK may want. Sanctions should be considered legitimate items to trade. Our alliances should not. Our political relationship with the DPRK—including at some point a peace treaty ending the Korean War—should be legitimate points of discussion. Tangible payments to the DPRK should not, given the unfortunate experiences the ROK and US had with such payments in past agreements.
In a policy with any hope of resolving US and global concerns about North Korea's nuclear and missile threat, sanctions play an important but supporting role. The key to a successful effort to deal with the North Korean threat without war is a combination of military deterrence, sanctions, a complex diplomatic offensive with clear and realistic short-term goals, and perhaps most importantly, a disciplined, clear public elucidation of US deterrence and diplomatic policy for Korea. The "tough" part of this approach (military deterrence and sanctions) is well within the reach of the Trump administration. Whether it has the personnel, structure and capacity for discipline for the diplomatic and public components of the effort is yet unproven.
Stabilization is chosen deliberately in this sentence. Denuclearization should be the long term stated goal of the effort but that goal should be placed in the same context as "general and complete disarmament" as used in Article VI of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. It is a legitimate goal, but one that is far over the horizon. The key goal at this moment is to halt momentum towards having North Korean nuclear weapons capable of reaching the US homeland.
Categories: Military options re North Korea, North Korea - negotiations, North Korea - our past failures, North Korea intercontinental ballistic missile, North Korea sanctions, North Korean H Bomb test, North Korean missiles, North Korean nukes, Trump and North Korea, UN and North Korea, UN Security Council
Tags: Military options re North Korea, North Korea - negotiations, North Korea - our past failures, North Korea intercontinental ballistic missile, North Korea sanctions, North Korean H Bomb test, North Korean missiles, North Korean nukes, Trump and North Korea, UN and North Korea, UN Security Council
U.N. council bans key North Korea exports over missile tests
U.N. council bans key North Korea exports over missile tests, Reuters, Michelle Nichols, August 5, 2017
(How quickly will China find ways to evade the sanctions, to which it agreed?)
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) – The United Nations Security Council unanimously imposed new sanctions on North Korea on Saturday that could slash by a third the Asian state's $3 billion annual export revenue over Pyongyang's two July intercontinental ballistic missile tests.
The U.S.-drafted resolution bans North Korean exports of coal, iron, iron ore, lead, lead ore and seafood. It also prohibits countries from increasing the current numbers of North Korean laborers working abroad, bans new joint ventures with North Korea and any new investment in current joint ventures.
"We should not fool ourselves into thinking we have solved the problem. Not even close. The North Korean threat has not left us, it is rapidly growing more dangerous," U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley told the council.
"Further action is required. The United States is taking and will continue to take prudent defensive measures to protect ourselves and our allies," she said, adding that Washington would continue annual joint military exercises with South Korea.
North Korea has accused the United States and South Korea of escalating tensions by conducting military drills.
North Korean ally China and Russia both slammed the U.S. deployment of the THAAD anti-missile defense system in South Korea. China called for a halt to the deployment and for any equipment already in place to be dismantled.
"The deployment of the THAAD system will not bring a solution to the issue of (North Korea's) nuclear testing and missile launches," China's U.N. Ambassador Liu Jieyi told the Security Council after the vote.
Categories: North Korea sanctions, North Korean missiles, THAAD, UN Security Council
Tags: North Korea sanctions, North Korean missiles, THAAD, UN Security Council
Haley on North Korean Missile Test: 'Action is Required. The World is on Notice.'
Haley on North Korean Missile Test: 'Action is Required. The World is on Notice', Washington Free Beacon via YouTube, July 5, 2017
Categories: Military force, Nikki Haley, North Korea sanctions, North Korean missiles, North Korean nukes, UN Security Council
Tags: Military force, Nikki Haley, North Korea sanctions, North Korean missiles, UN Security Council
Comments: 10 Comments


text:
Top 5 Online Live Streaming Sports Channels
February 20, 2020 April 15, 2020 SyedHassan	Sports Channels, Top 5 Online Live Streaming channels
Sports channels are popular TV channels that normally broadcast live sports events. The majority of sports fans most likely want to watch live sports games and sports-related shows. Many separate sports leagues offer their own streaming services. There are many great opportunities for every snow sports fan.
There are so many sports live websites that offer sports live videos from various sources and provide them in an easy-to-navigate interface. On the website, you will find all major sports such as football, baseball, basketball, hockey, tennis, and golf. The top 5 Online Live Streaming Sports Channels which the spectrum TV gold package offers are as follows:
ESPN is the best live sports channel in the USA, You can watch your favorite sports live such as football, basketball, international games, major league baseball, UFC, and other mixed martial arts rivalries, and much more, ESPN is boundless in terms of live streaming.
it is basically the on-demand sports streaming service that transmissions live shows and events, which are mostly live shows and proceedings that can play. Thus channel also comprises a rising list of unique programs that are only accessible on the ESPN + platform but ESPN Plus is not a TV station, so you can use it through the ESPN app.
If your Smart TV is connected to Wi-Fi or connected to the Internet service, downloading the ESPN application should not be a problem. You can easily watch this channel by subscribing spectrum TV gold package.
Tennis Channel is the only program destination in 24-hour TV set-up devoted to specialized leisure and the tennis lifestyle.
Including the established top subscription services TC Plus and TV every where's Tennis Channel, it owns 90% of the television rights to broadcast tennis in the United States and has extensive coverage, including the top 100 sports games and more.
FOX SPORTS is a USA's leading sports report manufacturer and home to USA's most common subscription TV sports channel and USA's major combined sports website and app.
The FOX SPORTS Channel can also be used in commercial areas, including licensed areas, hotel/motel rooms, mining warehouses, small businesses, and hospital and aged care facilities.
FOX SPORTS offers the best sports in the USA and around the world, including the USA Summer Domain Test Series, Gillette ODI. And T20I Series and KFC BBL, Toyota AFL Premiership Season and NRL in each round of the USA Telecom Premier League.
Sky Sports News is the birthplace of sports news. The station runs 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and always finds its brand in the latest and most important sports news. This is the goal for all sports fans. With such a loyal and engaging audience, the advantage of the brand in Sky Sports News is that advertisers can leverage a cross-platform approach that allows multi-touch campaigns to reach audiences.
If you have already subscribed to Sky Sports, Now TV and Virgin Media, you will automatically receive all channels. You can also download the app and watch your favorite sports on your smartphones.
Golf Channel is a multimedia, golf entertainment, and service company based in Orlando, Florida. The Golf Channel was co-founded by Arnold Palmer in 1995 and is now part of the NBC Sports Group with more than 120 million homes available in 83 countries and regions worldwide and 12 languages worldwide.
An exclusive partnership with the world's best tour enables Golf Channel to offer more real-time golf reporting than any other network combined, as well as a program schedule with the highest quality news, descriptions and original shows.
Univision Deportes En Vivo is a Spanish-language sports streaming platform from Univision Communications in the USA. It offers live and on-demand football games for subscribers online and on mobile devices.
The TUDN En Vivo app was developed for Android and iOS devices and can be downloaded free of charge. However, users must authenticate with their cable service credentials. Streaming video in this application is possible in the United States and Puerto Rico.
TURN En Vivo not only reflects the entire content of the TUDN television station on the platform. But also offers updates on various sports such as boxing, baseball, basketball, racing, tennis and more.
Read also: Some Unique Attires From The Fans Favorite Hits Of This Year
← Spectrum The Best Internet Connection
Best Online PC Games: You Don't Want to Miss! →
6G speeds would theoretically be 1 TB per second.
February 3, 2020 October 1, 2020 Naji Khan	1
A Step By Step Guide To Prune A Tree In Your Yard
March 13, 2020 March 13, 2020 Naji Khan
How did China build a modern hospital in 10 days?
February 4, 2020 February 9, 2020 Naji Khan

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


My friend Plantwoman posted this week about a semi-annual ritual we Houston area gardeners know well: the trimming of the trees. Unlike at Christmas, this is rarely a festive occasion or cause for celebration. The local electric company sends crews out to cut back trees that are growing too close to the power lines. These guys aren't much interested in artfully pruning and shaping: they're not paid to do an artistic job, just a utilitarian one. Like Plantwoman, I acknowledge the necessity of keeping power lines unobstructed and I appreciate the workers' efforts in the miserable August heat. Should we have a repeat of last September's hurricane, I'll be much happier if we don't lose power (the Head Gardener and I get cranky if we don't have a/c). It's not even my own trees that were butchered ... mangled ... decimated, but those of my neighbor across the alley. Still, the "borrowed" view is very much a part of my garden and I enjoy it as a backdrop to my own plantings. Or I did.
Here's how it looked Monday morning. The dark green tree festooned with pink coral vine (in the upper right quadrant of the picture) is a Bradford Pear; to its left but not quite visible, there's a pale pink Crape Myrtle.
This is the view today.
Here's a close-up view of what's left of the Bradford Pear tree. Pretty sad, isn't it?
Truthfully, I really don't know why my neighbors don't cut the whole danged tree down. Well, yeah, I do: it provides some shade from the afternoon sun, although I can't believe it's enough in proportion to the aggravation it causes. WHEN it has leaves, it's a very messy tree. I'll be interested to see how this one recovers from the whackness. And I believe I'll start looking for something to plant along my back fence to fill the empty spot. Too bad Grancy Greybeard (Chionanthus virginicus) is so messy, too. It's way too big for my back garden anyway.
Oh my, that does look sad! At our previous home, we had a couple of old trees growing right along the power line, and every few years the power company would come and trim them. How ugly they looked afterwards. As you say, they're more concerned with safety than with aesthetics. I agree, your neighbor might as well cut that Bradford Pear down. Twenty years ago, the Bradfords were planted in every new subdivision in town, but the last few years people have realized they are a messy tree and not suited to an area like ours with winter ice storms.
I know that feeling. The power company tree manglers came through here this summer. Your neighbors should just toss in the towel, cut that mangy thing down, and plant something shorter.
I'm not thrilled to hear that Chionanthus virginicus is a messy tree. I have a baby one that has yet to bloom. I suppose it's not too late to yank it, but it will be the right height under the power lines.
It is a sad day for any tree to be hacked up like that~~even a Bradford Pear deserves better treatment! I don't see how it can recover in your drought.
Last spring I went to my favorite nursery and it stunk like dead fish. I asked if they had fertilized and was told that the Bradsfords were in bloom!
I envy folks who live in newer suburbs~~only for their underground power lines! If Nashville could bury them the city would be gorgeous again and they could stop brutalizing the trees.
What do you think you will plant?
We've gone through this too. But I'm with you: trees over power lines are bad news. We watched our neighbor's tree hit a power line in a storm and set up fireworks. We were without power for 5 days in a very steamy September. But you would think they could be a little more sensitive on how to prune. Sorry about the neighbor's Bradford pear, but it needs to go. That kind of whacking will not be pretty.
I know cutting back the trees is a necessity, but even the power people must feel bad when they see how their workers leave some trees. Does it take longer to do it right? Is there less work involved?
I would at the very least send a letter of complaint to the power company and ask for some answers. Maybe even send them your before and after picture. How about a letter to the editor naming names(power company and subcontractors).
Geez, that is ridiculous! I wouldn't expect the power company employees to be arborists, but come on! That Bradford is just depressing!
OMG, I can't believe what that poor tree looks like now. The same thing happens to my sister's borrowed view (she's in Houston). It's necessary but painful. I've actually gone out and made suggestions to the guys who do the whacking on my street. Usually they can handle the suggestions (thankfully!). But it shouldn't have to be so hard.
Murphy's Law decrees that heavy pruning of neighbouring trees that you like ends in their early death.
Whereas heavy pruning of neighbouring trees towards which you harbour evil thoughts always results in their growing twice as vigorously!


text:
goog.provide('shaka.test.ManifestParser');

goog.require('shaka.media.InitSegmentReference');
goog.require('shaka.media.SegmentReference');

shaka.test.ManifestParser = class {
  /**
   * Verifies the segment references of a stream.
   *
   * @param {?shaka.extern.Stream} stream
   * @param {!Array.<shaka.media.SegmentReference>} references
   */
  static verifySegmentIndex(stream, references) {
    expect(stream).toBeTruthy();
    expect(stream.segmentIndex).toBeTruthy();

    if (references.length == 0) {
      expect(stream.segmentIndex.find(0)).toBe(null);
      return;
    }

    for (const expectedRef of references) {
      // Don't query negative times.  Query 0 instead.
      const startTime = Math.max(0, expectedRef.startTime);
      const position = stream.segmentIndex.find(startTime);
      expect(position).not.toBe(null);
      const actualRef =
          stream.segmentIndex.get(/** @type {number} */ (position));
      // NOTE: A custom matcher for SegmentReferences is installed, so this
      // checks the URIs as well.
      expect(actualRef).toEqual(expectedRef);
    }

    // Make sure that the references stop at the end.
    const lastExpectedReference = references[references.length - 1];
    const positionAfterEnd =
        stream.segmentIndex.find(lastExpectedReference.endTime);
    expect(positionAfterEnd).toBe(null);
  }

  /**
   * Creates a segment reference using a relative URI.
   *
   * @param {string} uri A relative URI to http://example.com
   * @param {number} start
   * @param {number} end
   * @param {string=} baseUri
   * @param {number=} startByte
   * @param {?number=} endByte
   * @param {number=} timestampOffset
   * @param {!Array.<!shaka.media.SegmentReference>=} partialReferences
   * @param {?string=} tilesLayout
   * @return {!shaka.media.SegmentReference}
   */
  static makeReference(uri, start, end, baseUri = '',
      startByte = 0, endByte = null, timestampOffset = 0,
      partialReferences = [], tilesLayout = '') {
    const getUris = () => uri.length ? [baseUri + uri] : [];

    // If a test wants to verify these, they can be set explicitly after
    // makeReference is called.
    const initSegmentReference = /** @type {?} */({
      asymmetricMatch: (value) => {
        return value == null ||
            value instanceof shaka.media.InitSegmentReference;
      },
    });

    timestampOffset =
        timestampOffset || /** @type {?} */(jasmine.any(Number));
    const appendWindowStart = /** @type {?} */(jasmine.any(Number));
    const appendWindowEnd = /** @type {?} */(jasmine.any(Number));

    return new shaka.media.SegmentReference(
        start, end, getUris, startByte, endByte,
        initSegmentReference,
        timestampOffset,
        appendWindowStart,
        appendWindowEnd,
        partialReferences,
        tilesLayout,
    );
  }
};

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
The Pirates!: In an Adventure with the Romantics
By Gideon Defoe
Read by John Lee
Part of The Pirates! Series
Category: Fiction | Audiobooks
Audiobook Download $14.00
Aug 21, 2012 | 288 Minutes
Buy the Audiobook Download:
audiobooks.com
About The Pirates!: In an Adventure with the Romantics
In Gideon Defoe's fifth Pirates! adventure, the dashing Pirate Captain and his intrepid crew encounter perhaps the most swashbuckling poets in history: Lord Byron, Percy Bysshe Shelley, and Shelley's fiancée, Mary Godwin.
While visiting the shores of Lake Geneva to restore their spirits and their finances, the Pirate Captain and his crew encounter some surprising fellow adventurers, literary giants of their age: the swaggering Lord Byron, the oddly shifty Percy Shelley, and his smart, quite attractive fiancée, Mary. Together the poets and pirates embark upon a journey that leads from the curiously adventureless Switzerland into the darkest bowels of Oxford, and finally to the forbidding heart of eastern Europe. Amidst haunted castles and early feminism, the Pirate Captain will confront some important questions, namely: What is the secret behind his mysterious belly tattoo? Is "Zombuloid, the corpse-beast" a better name for a monster than "Gorgo: Half-man, half-seaweed?" And, most importantly, what happens when a pirate finally falls in love?
Also in The Pirates! Series
Also by Gideon Defoe
See all books by Gideon Defoe
About Gideon Defoe
Gideon Defoe is the author of The Pirates! In An Adventure With Scientists, The Pirates! In An Adventure With Ahab, The Pirates! In an Adventure with Communists, and The Pirates! In an Adventure with Napoleon. You could be forgiven for… More about Gideon Defoe
Audiobook Download | $14.00
Published by Random House Audio
Aug 21, 2012 | 288 Minutes | ISBN 9780449806678
People Who Read The Pirates!: In an Adventure with the Romantics Also Read
"Silly and amusuing. . . . A rollicking read, full of laughs and lots of fun for readers who spot some of his literary in-jokes. The Pirates! In an Adventure with the Romantics is most entertaining, and hopefully The Pirate Captain and his crew will continue their adventures for some time to come."
"[Defoe] can make even pirates seem as cuddly as a teddy bear. . . . Wacky and funny and downright easy-to-love."
—Sacramento Book Review
"A treasure chest of lighthearted laughs."
—Knoxville News-Sentinel


Property prices in the coastal areas of Croatia have been increasing recently. As global tourism boosts and Croatia also works to improve its economy and make it more liberal, these are the right time for buying property in Croatia.
The Croatian economy is growing fast and so is the real estate sector of the country. Improvement in the regulations, a thriving tourism market, and a booming Croatian real estate market (which offers the beautiful and priceless coastal properties of Croatia to investors and customers from across the world) are some reasons behind it. The country is also easily accessible by other countries of Europe and has a glorious historical heritage, a comfortable weather, and a natural and serene environment. If you want to buy Croatian property, here are some points to consider.
Citizens of some countries get a favorable investment environment in Croatia because of the reciprocity agreement that has taken place between Croatia and their respective countries. Hence, nationals of these countries can buy property in Croatia as freely as the Croatian national, who can buy properties freely in the countries with which Croatia has the reciprocity agreement. Croatia has this reciprocity agreement with all European Union countries, United States, Russia, and many others. Nationals of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Switzerland can also buy property in Croatia if they live in the country permanently. It may take around 2 to 6 months towards the finalizing of the property purchase documents, while the Croatian Ministry of Foreign Affairs examines requests.
A contract agreement is created between the seller and the buyer, and the initial payment may be up to 10% of the price of the property. The buyer also needs to produce certain documents including proof of citizenship (this one is for both buyers and sellers), power of attorney, property details and others. The contract is later registered by the Municipal Cadastral Department.
A transfer tax of 4% is levied on all the property purchase transaction. If the property purchased is a new building, VAT is applied, which is 25% of the value of the property. The commission charged by real estate agents may vary from 3 % to 6% while legal fees may also have to be paid to the lawyer which is around 1% of the property purchase value. There are other fees including registration fee that may go up to 0.05% of the purchase cost.


text:
Sunil Ambekar: Development of Dalits and OBCs cannot be achieved in fragments
Sunil Ambekar, a key figure in RSS's student wing ABVP, reveals RSS's perspective on reservation and the new education policy. In the eyes of the RSS, reservation is an initiative towards establishing social harmony
By Kumar Sameer कुमार समीर On July 29, 2019 No Comments इस लेख को हिंदी में पढ़ें
There are many people who may not constantly make the newspaper headlines, but their works have a significant influence on today's socio-cultural and political world. This space is for the views on Dalitbahujan issues of such people who work behind the scenes. Here, Sunil Ambekar, a sociopolitical activist associated with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, speaks with Kumar Sameer. Readers' reactions on the ideas expressed here are welcome. – Managing Editor
'Social harmony is essential to bring about change'
Kumar Sameer
Sunil Ambekar, the national organizing secretary of the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP), student wing of the RSS, tells FORWARD Press that reservation is necessary under the existing circumstances and there is still much more work to be done in this regard. He says as long as social harmony is not established, its implementation should continue. Here is the edited excerpt of his interview:
Kumar Sameer: What are your views on the development of Dalit-OBCs and the reservation policy?
Sunil Ambekar: A provision for reservation was made in the Constitution with the aim of uplifting the social and economic status of the socially backward sections. Later, the OBC reservation implemented after the Mandal Commission also proved to be effective. Although it has been successful to some extent, a lot more needs to be done. Almost 70 years have gone by since the Constitution came into effect. However, there is a long way to go before we achieve adequate economic development of socially backward sections. It's a matter of concern. One more thing: ranting about the development of Dalits is of little use; development cannot be achieved in fragments. This should be kept in mind. Change is possible only by the progress made by villages and women. Social harmony, not the fragmentation of society, paves the way for development. At present, we feel the lack of it.
Sunil Ambekar, national organizing secretary, ABVP
Sameer: Then, what is the way out? Is this the time to re-evaluate the modalities of reservation?
Ambekar: Let me make it clear that reservation is an imperative for propagating social harmony. There is no doubt about that. Moreover, it is the commitment of our organization, Akhil Bhartiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP). Reservation should benefit the maximum number of people; this has been a major demand of our organization and we stand by it even today.
Sameer: How can it be made possible that more and more people benefit from reservation? Is there any framework for it?
Ambekar: See, it is undisputed that in the last 70 years, politics in India has been revolving around caste. However, the benefits of reservation have not accrued to all the people who have been facing caste discrimination. Merely 10-20 per cent of them are able to reap the benefits of reservation. A major section within each caste is still out of its reach. We will have to deliberate upon how it can benefit more and more people. Since this section is deprived, the debate around it goes on. It is time we came together, whether one has been benefiting from reservation or not, and moved forward to end this deprivation. The day we are successful, nothing can stop the establishment of social harmony in society.
Sameer: What more could be done to end deprivation?
Ambekar: By bringing about thorough changes in the obsolete education system, deprivation can be eradicated within every class and caste. Efforts in this direction are already being made. With the new education policy, we will see the results soon.
Sameer: Could you shed some light on the contents of the new education policy through which you claim to bring thorough change in the education system?
Ambekar: See, it is very important to have a uniform education system across the country and that's the focus of the new education policy. In the case of primary education, the policy talks about "multiple use of schools" along with "a group of schools" so that there is no compromise on the quality of education. This will also help in tackling the lack of competent teachers in rural areas.
Sameer: What else is unique about the new higher education policy?
Ambekar: Education should be perceived as integrated and not in fragments. Focusing on the re-structuring of old education institutions, what would be the new form of education? Keeping this in mind, the emphasis has been put on the need to move forward with it phase by phase. Restructuring of new institutions step by step is being emphasized upon. A proposal for bringing institutions such as research foundations, UGC (University Grants Commission), AICTE (All India Council for Technical Education), on a common platform and creating a new institution has been mooted in the new education policy. Apart from this, there is a proposal for bringing councils of various fields – medicine, agriculture, journalism, etc – under one roof.
Sameer: In what way would the centralization of institutions help?
Ambekar: To understand this, I will put forth a simple example. At present, children study specific streams like commerce, arts, science. But, under the new educational policy, every child will study commerce, arts and science. This is an imperative to withstand the global competition. Most developed countries follow this pattern of education. There is a need to help children excel in every field by developing a professional curriculum so that they are able to handle multiple tasks without being under much pressure.
Sameer: Is restoring the English-centric curriculum to withstand global competition not the main reason behind it?
Ambekar: Let me tell you that the new education policy underscores that we should not give in to the pressure of English. The emphasis is rather laid upon promotion of Indian languages. The focus is even on establishing a university for Indian languages. The policy talks about studying every language in its ancient and present forms. In addition, it stresses on the translation of literature of different languages and their use. Hence, talking about introducing an English-centric curriculum is absolutely pointless. The main motive of the policy is to withstand the global competition.
Sameer: One last question: What is your brief reaction to the present state of higher education in a country that boasted educational institutions such as Taxila and Vikramshila?
Ambekar: Certainly, India, under foreign rule, witnessed a rupture in its tradition of Sattvik Shikshan (virtuous education). Moreover, the post-Independence state machinery has also negated our glorious history. Thereafter, an education system that made us drift away from our roots was established. A curriculum that keeps our Indian-ness intact and an education that guarantees employment is needed. We need to put together a curriculum that is keeping with the 21st-century students and society.
Translation: Devina Auchoybur; copy-editing: Anil
Tags:ABVP dalit New Education Policy OBC reservation RSS
Kumar Sameer कुमार समीर
Kumar Sameer is a senior journalist. He has worked for several newspapers including 'Rashtriya Sahara'. He has also been the resident editor of the Delhi edition of the Hindi daily 'National Duniya'
SP-BSP alliance against Manuwad and for Manavwad?
Given its recent successes in the recent UP by-polls, the alliance has political potential as long as it adheres to the broader agenda of social justice laid out by Dalitbahujan icons Phule, Ambedkar and Periyar, write Sanjay Kumar and Badre Alam
मनुवाद के खिलाफ एसपी-बीएसपी गठबंधन?
उत्तर प्रदेश में हाल ही में हुए उपचुनावों में दलित-ओबीसी शक्ति को मिली जबरदस्त सफलता बहुत मायने रखती है। इस जीत को देखते हुए यह गठबंधन राष्ट्रीय स्तर पर राजनीतिक दावेदार बन कर उभरा है, साथ ही इससे सामाजिक न्याय के व्यापक एजेंडे का आधार तैयार होने का भरोसा मिला है। ऐसा भरोसा जिसकी नींव बहुजनों के जागरण के प्रतीक पुरुषों ने रखी थी। एक पड़ताल
Why Prakash Ambedkar prefers Congress to BJP
Prakash Ambedkar, Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar's grandson and president of Republican Party of India Bahujan Mahasangh, was in Patna to participate in the 'Save the Constitution, Save the Country' rally. Here are excerpts from his conversation with senior journalist Anil Gupta
कांग्रेस को इस कारण भाजपा से बेहतर मानते हैं प्रकाश आंबेडकर
भारतरत्न बाबासाहब भीमराव आंबेडकर के पौत्र और रिपब्लिकन पार्टी ऑफ इन्डिया बहुजन महासंघ के नेता पूर्व सांसद प्रकाश आंबेडकर बीते रविवार को बिहार की राजधानी पटना के गांधी मैदान में आयोजित 'संविधान बचाओ, देश बचाओ' रैली में शामिल होने के लिए शनिवार को पटना पहुंचे। उनसे फारवर्ड प्रेस के प्रतिनिधि अनिल गुप्त ने लंबी बातचीत की। पढ़ें इस बातचीत के संपादित अंश
दलितों और ओबीसी का विकास टुकड़ों-टुकड़ों में नहीं हो सकता : सुनील आंबेकर
आरएसएस की नजर में आरक्षण सामाजिक समरसता बनाने का उपक्रम है। आरएसएस से संबद्ध सुनील आंबेकर फारवर्ड प्रेस से बातचीत में बता रहे हैं आरक्षण और नई शिक्षा नीति के संदर्भ में आरएसएस के नजरिए के बारे में


Welcome to the Caffeine nutrition section for 1 types of white wine, each of which can be scaled by the amount in g, oz or typical portion sizes. Simply click on a link from the nutrition list below to answer the question how much Caffeine is found in white wine?
The list below gives the total Caffeine content in the 1 items from the general description 'white wine'.There is 1 item containing Alcoholic beverage, wine, table, white per 100g of white wine.
This item and the subsequent nutrition breakdown is from our database of over 7500 food items and each food item can be scaled for different amounts of Caffeine. The nutrition Caffeine list below shows the total amount of Caffeine in mg per 100g for white wine.
From the Caffeine content in white wine list, click on a link to give a full nutrition breakdown which includes calories, protein, fat and carbs as well as Caffeine. Each white wine item can be scaled by different amounts to adjust the amounts of Caffeine so that it is not just, for example, the values in 100g of Alcoholic beverage, wine, table, white. The item can be scaled by quantites in g, oz or typical serving sizes.
Caffeine contained in 100g of 'white wine', click a link for different servings.