offline
- Eris
- Novi MyCity građanin
- Pridružio: 10 Okt 2013
- Poruke: 0
|
lancelot ::UN Vijeće Sigurnosti danas je jednoglasno odobrilo rezoluciju o dostavi humanitarne pomoći Siriji. Sporna rezolucija - koja prelazi okvire "humanitarnog" karaktera - sadrži prijetnje sirijskim vlastima, spominju se "dodatni koraci" ukoliko vlasti ne budu surađivale s odredbama ove rezolucije.
Tekst rezolucije žestoko je prije nekoliko dana kritizirala Rusija ističući kako se tekst ovakve rezolucije može eventualno iskoristiti i za pokretanje vojne intervencije protiv Sirije. Zbog tih kritika mnogi su smatrali i očekivali kako bi Rusija, i Kina, mogle ponovno uložiti veto - kao što su učinile i kada je riječ o prethodne tri rezolucije u kojima se Siriji prijeti sankcijama i potencijalnim napadima.
No, danas se to ipak nije dogodilo - rezolucija je prošla jednoglasno.
Esencija rezolucije je dostava humanitarne pomoći za - prema procjeni UN-a - oko 9,3 milijuna ljudi kojima treba pomoć. Rezoluciju su sastavili australski UN ambasador, zajedno s ambasadorima iz Jordana i Luksemburga.
Kada je Rusija prije desetak dana otvoreno kritizirala tekst rezolucije (vidi: Rusija odbacila Zapadnu rezoluciju o Siriji ističući kako se iza humanitarne teme krije put prema vojnoj agresiji), iz SAD-a su prozvali Rusiju da odbija pružiti pomoć stanovnicima Sirije. No, Rusija nije imala ništa protiv dostave humanitarne pomoći, već su kritike bile usmjerene političkom sadržaju same rezolucije - nije jasno zašto ruska delegacija nije inzistirala na izbacivanju ovog teksta.
Naime, u tekstu se traži da sirijska vojska prestane s granatiranjem i zračnim napadima, a spominju se i tzv. "bačva-bombe" koje navodno na nekim mjestima koristi sirijska vojska pri napadima iz helikoptera. Nadalje, ono što je najspornije u ovom tekstu je prijetnja "dodatnim koracima" ako sirijska se sirijska strana ne bude pridržavala ovih odredbi.
Drugim riječima, ova rezolucija se može interpretirati na takav način da se sirijsku vojsku optužuje za ometanje humanitarnog procesa ukoliko nastave sa zračnim napadima na položaje militanata - takva optužba mogla bi se dalje iskoristiti za pokretanje upravo spomenutih "dodatnih koraka".
Spomenimo pritom i to kako se ovih dana sve glasnije spominje da se SAD priprema baš na takvu opciju - vojni napad na Siriju kojime, prema riječima njihovih dužnosnika, žele "pojačati pritisak na Damask"
Nameće se pitanje - što se dogodilo s ruskom politikom prema ovoj rezoluciji u zadnjih 5 dana? Naime, još u ponedjeljka je Lavrov naglasio kako će Rusija blokirati ovu rezoluciju, jer se u njoj - između ostalog - traži da humanitarni konvoji mogu ulaziti u sirijski teritorij bez odobrenja Damaska.
Rusija i Kina danas nisu uložile veto, niti su bile suzdržane, već su glasale za ovu rezoluciju.
"Ova rezolucija nije trebala biti niti potrebna, humanitarna pomoć bi se trebala odobravati samom primjenom međunarodnog zakona", komentirao je Ban Ki-moon. "Izuzetno sam šokiran činjenicom da obje strane drže pod opsadom civile te to koriste kao taktiku rata", rekao je.
Da, u rezoluciji se ne kritizira samo jedna strana, već se navode kršenja ljudskih prava s obje - no, militantima se u tekstu ne prijeti "dodatnim koracima", tako da ova rezolucija svakako nije uravnotežena, a i njen humanitarni karakter je upitan.
Rezolucija traži od generalnog tajnika UN-a da u roku od 30 dana izvijesti UNVS po pitanju da li Sirija surađuje po svim točkama te da li je potrebno "poduzeti dodatne korake". Naravno, Rusija tada može reći kako se ne slaže s potrebom poduzimanja "dodatnih koraka", no Rusija se nije slagala niti s interpretacijom notorne rezolucije 1973 koja je prihvaćena 2011. i na temelju koje je napadnuta Libija.
Nadalje, u tekstu se zahtjeva da "sve strane, naročito sirijske vlasti, odmah dopuste prolaz UN humanitarnim agencijama i njihovim partnerima, uključujući i u zoni konflikta i preko granica".
Zapadne sile, prenosi Reuters, na ovoj rezoluciji rade već gotovo godinu dana i sada su je napokon dobili.
Kompletan tekst rezolucije nije sporan, mnogi segmenti mogli su se prihvatiti kao "uravnoteženi", no spominjanje "dodatnih koraka" je preriskantna stavka koju bi sirijski neprijatelji mogli uskoro itekako iskoristiti. Rezolucija ne definira korake niti ne ističe kako se njima odobrava uporaba Članka 7 (koji odobrava vojnu silu), no baš ta "sloboda interpretacije" postala je najopasnija karika - ne možemo se ne prisjetiti Libije kada se "zona zabrane leta" pretvorila u zračne napade u kojima je razbijena libijska vojska, a i stradao je veći broj civila.
Da li je aktualna situacija u Ukrajini na neki način pridonijela ruskom odobrenju ove rezolucije, ili je Rusija posve sigurna da može spriječiti stranu vojnu intervenciju, tek ćemo vidjeti u narednim danima.
Libiska rezolucija je binding and threatening (threatening under chapter 7)
Syria rezolucija je binding but not threatening
Autor ovog texta vjerovatno nije procita ni jednu od dve spomenute rezolucije
SC rezolucija 1973 Libija and SC Humanitarian resolution Syria nemaju nista, apsolutno nista zajednockog, i jeste, orginal rezolucija koju su podnijeli Jordam, Australija i Luxemburg je drasticno promijenjena, zasto MSM nisu posvetili vecu paznju tome je dobro pitanje i na koje oni vjerovatno nece odgovoriti
Nigde u rezoluciji nema prijetnje ni vladi ni rebelima, i nema nikakvi rokova kao sto autor navodi da je rok 30 dana i da se vidi jesuli potrebne daljne akcije od SC, rok od 30 dana koji se spominje u rezolucije je rok za prvi report sa terena, i posle toga report mora biti podnesen svaki 30 dana za SC, koliko ce ovi reporta svaki 30 dana da bude podneseno za SC (Security Council) bog zna dok oni ne odluce da poduzmu daljne korake i ako uopste odluce.
Za usporedbu Liby i Syria resolution
Rezolucija koja je izglasana za Libiju
[Link mogu videti samo ulogovani korisnici]
PDF SC File
[Link mogu videti samo ulogovani korisnici]
Rezolucija koja je izglasana za Siriju
[Link mogu videti samo ulogovani korisnici]
Dio texta koji je izbacen prije glasanja za rezoluciju u Siriji
The Western draft resolution was initially submitted to Russia and China on 6 February, and its discussion at a meeting of the Council’s permanent members was planned for the very next day. Russian and Chinese representatives did not attend this meeting, justifiably regarding the rush to discuss the resolution as pressure. Neither did they attend the meeting on 10 February. Later, however, China made an elegant diplomatic move by agreeing to meet with the draft resolution’s sponsors separately (so only with representatives of Australia, Luxembourg and Jordan). After the meeting, the Chinese representative declared that the actions of the UN Security Council could hinder the Geneva II peace talks currently under way.
Russia has refused to discuss the draft resolution at all. The Russian representative has stated that the proposed text is not even suitable as a basis for further discussion. He added that the draft resolution is of no benefit whatsoever and that it is essential to focus on the issue of terrorism.
So what exactly have the UN Security Council’s Western members and their allies suggested?
Firstly, the draft resolution has set a deadline for the full implementation of the Geneva Communiqué of 30 June 2012. Let us look at the text of this communiqué. It contains rather a lot of points, but the most important one isthe transfer of political power. (1) Secondly, the draft resolution requires the Syrian government to fully implement the so-called 2 October 2013 presidential statement by President Bashar al-Assad. The draft resolution also calls for the full implementation of provisions in other documents.
Thus a new tactic has been chosen by the Security Council’s Western members. While previous draft resolutions vetoed by Russia and China were notable for their clumsiness and heavy-handed pressure, now the situation has changed considerably. The new draft resolution supports the West’s primary objective much more subtlely than the anti-Syrian draft resolutions periodically submitted to the UN Security Council in the past. This objective is to discredit Russia in the international arena whilst at the same time discrediting the UN as an organisation that has allegedly lost the ability to fulfil its own functions of maintaining international peace and security... (2)
At present, the text is not so heavy-handed and, most importantly, it addresses a number of Russia’s permanent objections to previous draft resolutions. For example, the new draft resolution condemns the use of sieges, and calls for neutrality in the provision of medical assistance to all sides of the conflict. The new draft resolution also condemns terrorism and the participation of foreign militants (although they are referred to rather neutrally as «foreign fighters»). In the same section, there is also a call for the opposition to maintain its rejection of terrorism. After being lulled into a false sense of security by these calls and condemnations, the following section on terrorism urges Hezbollah to immediately withdraw from Syria.
Gradually, however, the ostentatious objectivity of the draft resolution’s sponsors disappears, as the text once again condemns arbitrary detention and torture «in Syrian prisons», so pointing the finger at the authorities rather than the militants. It should be noted that «arbitrary detention» and «torture» can be both ordinary crimes and international crimes. If it is peacetime, then it is an ordinary crime and is prosecuted according to the internal law of the state. However, if the crime is committed during armed conflict (especially an international conflict), then it becomes an international crime and as such is subject to the jurisdiction of international criminal courts. The same objective is served by the draft resolution’s reference to «the use of starvation as a method of combat». This has clearly been taken from provisions in the Geneva Conventions of 1949 for the protection of war victims, and is therefore an attempt to drag the International Criminal Court into the Syrian conflict.
Which is to say that by mentioning «torture in Syrian prisons» and «the use of starvation as a method of combat», the legal preparations are being made to transfer the situation in Syria over to the International Criminal Court (ICC). This move has been made with the expectation that if Russia uses her veto during the vote to transfer the situation in Syria over to the ICC, it will damage Russia’s reputation, portraying her as a country which is supposedly preventing «the punishment of persons guilty of committing international crimes» and hampering the fight against the «humanitarian catastrophe» in Syria.
Finally, the draft resolution contains a reference to the use of force. So, a 15-day deadline has been set for all the demands of the UN Security Council’s Western powers to be met. If the demands are not met, the draft resolution refers to the possibility of introducing «measures under Article 41 of the UN Charter». This article covers a rather wide spectrum of measures which are all essentially sanctions. Article 41 of the UN Charter states that «the Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.» As we can see, the list of possible sanctions is quite diverse and, most importantly, it is not closed, so the Council could also adopt any other measures.
With good reason, Russia and China rejected the draft resolution, not allowing the Security Council to be used as a tool to escalate the conflict.
The new draft resolution on Syria is just a slightly ground down version of exactly the same clumsy work that the West has been busy with at the UN Security Council over the last few years.
[Link mogu videti samo ulogovani korisnici]
|
