A4. Un Security Council Draft Resolution Condemning Continued Israeli Settlements, New York, 18 February 2011.

2011 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
pp. 205-206
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New York ◽  
Security Council ◽  
The United States ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
Draft Resolution ◽  
Arab League ◽  
Viable Approach ◽  
East Jerusalem ◽  
The U.S

When Israel resumed settlement construction in September 2010 after a temporary freeze, the Palestinians suspended peace talks until the imposition of a comprehensive settlement freeze including East Jerusalem and began exploring alternative ways forward in the absence of negotiations. The Arab League supported this decision and agreed to work with the Palestinians to seek alternatives until the United States came up with a serious, viable approach to resuming negotiations. The Arab efforts focused on securing international recognition of a Palestinian state and Palestinian rights with individual states and in international fora (see Quarterly Updates in JPS 158 and 159 for details). To this end, the PLO and Arab states began work in mid-December 2010 on a UN Security Council (UNSC) resolution that would reaffirm the illegality of Israeli settlements, using wording carefully cobbled together from U.S. official statements on settlements so as to make it difficult for the United States to oppose the resolution. The draft was submitted by Lebanon with seventy-eight countries as cosponsors. The United States nonetheless vetoed the measure, with all the other UNSC members voting in favor. For the U.S. explanation of its decision to veto, see Doc. D2 below. For more on the background and ramifications of the resolution, see Graham Usher's “Letter from the UN” in this issue. The text of the resolution was taken from the UN's Web site at www.un.org.

D2. U.S. AMB. to the un Susan Rice, Explanation of the U.S. Vote on the Unsc Resolution on Condemning Continuing Israeli Settlements, New York, 18 February 2011.

2011 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
pp. 218-219
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New York ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Web Site ◽  
The United States ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
Draft Resolution ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The U.S

Ambassador Rice made the following statement to the UN Security Council in effort to explain how the United States could veto a draft resolution (see Doc. A4 above) reaffirming the illegality of Israeli settlements that had been carefully crafted to use wording from previous U.S. official statements on the subject under consideration. The text was taken from the United States Mission to the United Nations Web site at usun.state.gov. For background on the resolution and the U.S. veto, see Graham Usher's “Letter from the UN” in this issue

Why U.S. Recognition of Jerusalem Could Be Contrary to International Law

2018 ◽  
Vol 47 (3) ◽  
pp. 72-92 ◽  
Author(s):  
Victor Kattan
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Legal Standing ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
Arab League ◽  
Un General Assembly ◽  
The City ◽  
The U.S

President Trump's decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and to move the U.S. embassy to the city has been universally condemned, as it is contrary to a well-established rule of international law stipulating that states must not recognize the fruits of conquest. While the United States chose to exercise its right of veto in the UN Security Council to block a resolution criticizing the presidential decision, the remaining members of the council, including close U.S. allies, criticized it. Similarly, the UN General Assembly, the European Union, the Arab League, and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation have all passed strongly worded resolutions saying that they would not recognize any changes to the pre-1967 borders, including in and around Jerusalem. This paper examines the legal standing of the U.S. decision in light of previous positions that the United States has historically adopted or endorsed.

scholarly journals United States Recognizes Morocco's Sovereignty Over Western Sahara

2021 ◽  
Vol 115 (2) ◽  
pp. 318-323
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Security Council ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Community ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Western Sahara ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
The Right ◽  
The U.S

On December 10, 2020, President Donald J. Trump reversed decades of U.S. policy by announcing that the United States would recognize Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara as part of a deal in which Morocco would normalize relations with Israel. Despite a 1991 UN truce and continued calls by the UN Security Council for Morocco and the Polisario Front to reach a mutually agreeable solution, neither side has relinquished its claim of sovereignty over Western Sahara. Trump's announcement ended nearly thirty years of U.S. support for UN-led negotiations and places the United States at odds with the majority of the international community, which swiftly criticized the U.S. action as a violation of the right to self-determination.

Russia may entrench its influence in CAR

2021 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Security Council ◽  
The United States ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Mining Sites ◽  
Un Security Council

Significance Russia on June 28 rejected as “lies” similar allegations by the United States, United Kingdom and France at the UN Security Council. The exchanges come against the backdrop of rising diplomatic tensions between Russia and France in CAR. Impacts Touadera’s ongoing offensive against rebel forces threatens to deliver a fatal blow to the peace deal he struck with them in 2019. Expanding Russian control over key mining sites could be a persistent source of frictions absent sophisticated local arrangements. Human rights concerns will deter some African leaders from engaging with Russia, but not all.

Historical Landmarks in the Hundred Years’ War on Palestine

2017 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
pp. 6-17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rashid I. Khalidi
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Security Council ◽  
The United States ◽  
League Of Nations ◽  
Historical Documents ◽  
Hundred Years War ◽  
The Past ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
History Of ◽  
Modern Era

This essay argues that what has been going on in Palestine for a century has been mischaracterized. Advancing a different perspective, it illuminates the history of the last hundred years as the Palestinians have experienced it. In doing so, it explores key historical documents, including the Balfour Declaration, Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, and UN Security Council Resolution 242, none of which included the Palestinians in key decisions impacting their lives and very survival. What amounts to a hundred years of war against the Palestinians, the essay contends, should be seen in comparative perspective as one of the last major colonial conflicts of the modern era, with the United States and Europe serving as the metropole, and their extension, Israel, operating as a semi-independent settler colony. An important feature of this long war has been the Palestinians' continuing resistance, against heavy odds, to colonial subjugation. Stigmatizing such resistance as “terrorism” has successfully occluded the real history of the past hundred years in Palestine.

Africa in the Shuffle

1995 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 22-23
Author(s):  
Immanuel Wallerstein
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New York ◽  
African American ◽  
African Americans ◽  
New York Times ◽  
The United States ◽  
The New York Times ◽  
The U.S

Once upon a time, not so very long ago, the study of Africa in the United States was a very rare and obscure practice, engaged in almost exclusively by African-American (then called Negro) intellectuals. They published scholarly articles primarily in quite specialized journals, notably Phylon, and their books were never reviewed in the New York Times. As a matter of fact, at this time (that is, before 1945) there weren't even very many books written about African-Americans in the U.S., although the library acquisitions were not quite as rare as those for books about Africa.

Legacies of War

2008 ◽  
Author(s):  
Howard G. Wilshire ◽  
Richard W. Hazlett ◽  
Jane E. Nielson
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New York ◽  
World War Ii ◽  
Military Service ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Military Training ◽  
The United States ◽  
Military Operations ◽  
Foreign Wars ◽  
The U.S

Since 1900, United States troops have fought in more foreign conflicts than any other nation on Earth. Most Americans supported those actions, believing that they would keep the scourge of war far from our homes. But the strategy seems to have failed—it certainly did not prevent terror attacks against the U.S. mainland. The savage Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 and the 11 September 2001 (9/11) attacks on New York and Washington, D.C. were not the first to inflict war damage in America’s 48 contiguous states, however—nor were they the first warlike actions to harm innocent citizens since the Civil War. Paradoxically, making war abroad has always required practicing warfare in our own back yards. Today’s large, mechanized military training exercises have degraded U.S. soils, water supplies, and wildlife habitats in the same ways that the real wars affected war-torn lands far away. The saddest fact of all is that the deadly components of some weapons in the U.S. arsenal never found use in foreign wars but have attacked U.S. citizens in their own homes and communities. The relatively egalitarian universal service of World War II left a whole generation of Americans with nostalgia and reverence for military service. Many of us, perhaps the majority, might argue that human and environmental sacrifices are the price we must be willing to pay to protect our interests and future security. A current political philosophy proposes that the United States must even start foreign wars to protect Americans and their homes. But Americans are not fully aware of all the past sacrifices—and what we don’t know can hurt us. Even decades-old impacts from military training still degrade land and contaminate air and water, particularly in the arid western states, and will continue to do so far into the future. Exploded and unexploded bombs, mines, and shells (“ordnance,” in military terms) and haphazard disposal sites still litter former training lands in western states. And large portions of the western United States remain playgrounds for war games, subject to large-scale, highly mechanized military operations for maintaining combat readiness and projecting American power abroad.

Far Beyond the Good Neighbor Policy

Worldview ◽  
1979 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 17-22
Author(s):  
Francis X. Gannon
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New York ◽  
Persian Gulf ◽  
New York Times ◽  
The United States ◽  
Good Neighbor Policy ◽  
The Persian Gulf ◽  
Good Neighbor ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Western Democracies

As President Carter prepared for his first official visit to Mexico in February, 1979, to discuss, among other things, U.S. access to its neighbor's new-found oil, the U.S. secretary of energy, James R. Schlesinger, warned that the security of the Western democracies could be completely undermined if instability became endemic in the Persian Gulf and the flow of oil to Europe, Japan, and the United States was sharply curtailed.There was considerable irony in this situation. As columnist James Reston observed in the New York Times, the president was not going to Mexico "to deal with the price of Mexican gas—though that is an immediate and divisive problem—but with the price of neglect.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document