By Ena Cefo
The Syrian regime has once again been accused of using
chemical weapons on civilians—using chlorine gas during a March 16th
attack on the town of Sarmin and
between March 16th and 31st on the town of Idlib.
The regime’s continued use of chemical weapons is a violation of the Chemical Weapons
Convention, which Syria ratified in 2013, as well as the UN Security
Council’s Resolution
2209, which “reiterate[d] that no party in Syria should use, develop,
produce, acquire, stockpile, retain, or transfer chemical weapons.” Resolution
2209 warns that future non-compliance with the Security Council’s prior
resolution, Resolution
2118, that prohibited the use of chemical weapons in Syria will lead to the
“impos[ition of] measures under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter.” The
United States and other members of the Security Council supported a continuing
investigation into the recent allegations of chemical weapon use by the
Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).
By Stephen Levy
The United Nations Security Council voted unanimously on March 3rd in support of a resolution that would “impose targeted sanctions in order to support the search for peace” in South Sudan if needed. The two sides of the conflict, the South Sudanese government and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement, agreed to terms in early 2014, but have not, at least according to the U.N.S.C., truly sought to end the conflict. The U.N.S.C. stated that it would sanction any individual tied to violence or instability in the country. The U.S. ambassador, Samantha Power, who wrote an authoritative book on recent U.S. responses to genocide, wrote the resolution. The U.S. has also imposed sanctions on South Sudanese individuals on its own.
By Stephen Levy
The Joint Plan of Action, the interim agreement made between
the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (UNSC) and Germany (P5+1)
and Iran in 2013 set the final deadline on a permanent agreement on Iran’s
nuclear program on November 24, 2014. On that date, however, the two sides were
unable to reach an agreement, and extended
the deadline to March 24, 2015.
The continuation of negotiations has angered two influential
parties with additional political motives. First is Israeli Prime Minister
Benyamin Netanyahu, whose party is clinging
to a narrow lead in the polls for a March Knesset
election primarily due to Netanyahu’s national security credentials. Netanyahu
has consistently opposed striking a deal with Iran, and warned
the West that only continued sanctions would end the crisis. U.S.
Republicans in Congress, joined by multiple Democrats, have also proposed
additional sanctions against Iran should it fail to negotiate in good faith.
House Speaker John Boehner invited
Netanyahu to give a speech in front of a Joint Session of Congress, setting off
fierce discussions on whether the President can meet with leaders up for
election, whether Congress and the White House should coordinate on speeches by
foreign diplomats to Congress, and the relationship between Israel and Iran
itself.
By Courtney Cox
Just one day after the U.N. Security Council rejected a
resolution that would require the establishment within three years of a
Palestinian state on lands occupied by Israel, the Palestinian Ambassador to
the U.N. submitted letters of accession to the International Criminal Court (ICC).
Al
Jazeera reports that days later, the U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon
confirmed that Palestine will join the ICC on April 1, 2015. The ICC was created
by the Rome Statute in 1998 and has jurisdiction over crimes against humanity,
genocide, and war crimes. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas believes acceding
to the treaty will facilitate the prosecution of war crimes committed by
Israel. Israel has promptly responded by freezing the transfer of over $100
million in tax funds collected for Palestinians. The United States is also
unsettled by Palestine’s new membership. A State Department representative asserted
that the move would cause an impediment to permanent peaceful resolution.
By Stephen Levy
On Monday, the United States placed sanctions on Ali
Abdullah Saleh, the former “President” of Yemen, reports The
Guardian. The sanctions come during a political whirlwind in the southern
Arabian country: first came United Nations Security Council sanctions on Saleh;
then Saleh and his political party removed themselves from the country’s unity
cabinet; finally came the U.S. sanctions. Included in the sanctions imposed by
the UN and the U.S. were two leaders of the Houthi rebel movement. The Houthis
and Saleh, seemingly odd bedfellows due to their constant warring during
Saleh’s long-lasting presidency, have been accused of aiding each other to
destabilize the unity government.
By Jenny Park
When North Korea makes belligerent threats of nuclear
annihilation and actually carries out nuclear tests and ballistic missile
launches, the world’s response is surprisingly lukewarm. This is an odd phenomenon
considering the tougher sanctions against Russia for supporting the separatists in Ukraine, and against Iran for a multitude of
transgressions, including continued illicit nuclear activities.
But North Korea’s violations of international law are quite extensive. To name a few, North
Korea developed nuclear weapons after withdrawing from the international
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and tested them out not only once in 2006,
but also in 2009 and in 2012. Mind you, China, the U.S., Japan, Russia, and the
two Koreas have engaged in six-party talks from 2003 to 2007 to
try to resolve North Korea’s nuclear issue to no avail. Furthermore, the multiple
UN sanctions (UNSecurity Council Resolutions 1718, 1874, and 2094) that imposed
economic and commercial pressures against North Korea also proved to be
ineffective.
By Jenny Park
On the same day that the UN Security Council adopted an
international counterterrorism resolution, the U.S. Treasury imposed sanctions on 11 people and one entity that funded terrorist groups,
including the Islamic State. The sanctions freeze the individuals’ assets and
bars U.S. citizens from doing business with them. Since the targeted
terrorist groups raise much of its funds locally - thus, beyond the scope of
government reach - the impact of these sanctions is unclear. Nonetheless, the
purpose is to publicly expose those involved and to restrict the flow of
money.
