Tag: United Nations

  • UN calls for probe into killing of Al Jazeera journalist Shireen Akleh

    UN calls for probe into killing of Al Jazeera journalist Shireen Akleh

    United Nations (UN) senior officials on Wednesday has called for an investigation into the killing of Ms Shireen Abu Akleh an Al Jazeera correspondent.

    The veteran Palestinian-American journalist, 51, was fatally shot while reporting on an Israeli military operation in the West Bank town of Jenin.

    Her producer also was wounded, according to media reports.

    Ms Audrey Azoulay, head of the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), issued a statement condemning her killing.

    Akleh was shot “despite the fact that she was wearing a jacket with the word ‘press’ written on it”, she said.

    “The killing of a clearly identified press worker in a conflict area is a violation of international law. I call on the relevant authorities to investigate this crime and bring those responsible to justice.”

    Azouley recalled that UNESCO works to raise awareness about the need to protect journalists, notably through the UN Plan of Action on the Safety of journalists and the Issue of Impunity.

    The UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process took to Twitter to express his strong condemnation.

    Tor Wennesland offered his deepest condolences to the family of the slain journalist and wished a speedy recovery to her injured colleague.

    “I call for an immediate and thorough investigation and for those responsible to be held accountable. Media workers should never be targeted,” Wennesland said.

    His Deputy, Lynn Hastings, who is also the UN Humanitarian Coordinator for the Occupied Palestinian Territory, highlighted the risks journalists face in reporting the news.

    Akleh was killed as the UN was marking World Press Freedom Day in Gaza “showing dangers journalists face every day”, she wrote on Twitter. “Prompt investigations must be conducted for accountability.”

    The UN human rights office, OHCHR, said it was appalled by the killing.

    “Our Office is on the ground verifying the facts,” OHCHR tweeted. “We urge an independent, transparent investigation into her killing. Impunity must end.”

  • United Nations’ Guterres: Chief servant of many masters – By Owei Lakemfa

    United Nations’ Guterres: Chief servant of many masters – By Owei Lakemfa

    The tours through Europe and Africa from April 26, 2022, by Antonio Guterres, the United Nations Secretary-General, raised once again the powers, importance and relevance of the world body.

    The tours reinforced my analysis that the UN scribe is basically a funambulist, an acrobat walking a tightrope or slack on the world stage. He has to be faithful to many masters with conflicting interests, especially the five permanent members of the UN Security Council each of who, at will, can veto whatever he does or deny him a second term in office as was done to Boutros Boutros-Ghali in 1996.

    When Guterres visited Europe over the Ukrainian Conflict, he was aware that two permanent members, China and Russia, are on one side, and the three other members: the United States, Britain and France, are on the other. It was like a man tiptoeing through a landmine. He had visited Russia before crossing over to Ukraine. He received a barrage of attacks for not visiting Ukraine first. But did it really matter which country he visited first? Secondly, the visit, coming in the third month of the war was late when the UN in the first place, should have prevented the war. True? Can the UN effectively intervene in a war in which its permanent members have no meeting point?

    I think these attacks were tactics meant to intimidate Guterres into feeling some guilt that he had not championed the cause of Ukraine. Ukraine, before this visit, had attacked the UN refugee agency, UNHCR, for not allegedly being effective in addressing the humanitarian crisis in which 12 million persons are in need of assistance. It had also attacked the International Committee of the Red Cross, ICRC, for alleged inaction. In fact, ICRC President, Peter Maurer, who visited Russia, was accused of being in bed with the former.

    In Moscow, Guterres and President Vladimir Putin discussed proposals for humanitarian assistance and evacuation of civilians from conflict zones, especially in the port city of Mariupol where thousands of civilians, Ukrainian troops and non-state far-right combatants remain holed up in the Azovstal steel mill. Guterres said possible war crimes – a refrain of Ukraine and its supporters – will require independent investigation for effective accountability. He proposed the establishment of a tripartite Humanitarian Contact Group comprising Russia, Ukraine and the UN “to look for opportunities for the opening of safe corridors, with local cessations of hostilities, and to guarantee that they are actually effective”.

    The UN scribe raised the energy and food crises the war has caused adding: “This comes on top of the shock of the continued COVID-19 pandemic and uneven access to resources for recovery, that particularly penalize developing countries around the world. So, the sooner peace is established, the better – for the sake of Ukraine, Russia, and for the world.” Guterres who had repeatedly called for ceasefires said: “But it is my deep conviction that the sooner we end this war, the better – for the people of Ukraine, for the people of the Russian Federation, and those far beyond.” But he had no ceasefire plans nor any for a negotiated settlement.

    He was merely a “messenger of peace.” On April 28, Guterres crossed into Ukraine visiting the Kyiv suburbs of Borodianka, Bucha and Irpin, claimed places of war crimes, where he said the “horrific scenario demonstrates something that is, unfortunately, always true: civilians always pay the highest price”.

    He added: “I fully support the International Criminal Court and I appeal to the Russian Federation to accept to cooperate with the International Criminal Court.”

    As in Russia, while he seemed worried about the war and its effects, he did not press for a ceasefire or immediate peace talks. Yet he knew that the war is devastating for humanity. When he flew to Senegal, Guterres told the African continent that its twin challenges of COVID-19 and climate change have with the Ukrainian War, become threefold.

    He emphasised that the war is aggravating a “triple food, energy and financial crisis”, which could push more people into hunger and result in socio-political crises. Guterres is aware that the combatants in Ukraine, their backers and cheerleaders do not want an immediate end to the war, so despite his personal belief, he is not pushing for peace. All he does is make loud lamentations about the war. In the Niger Republic where he arrived on May 2, his theme was about terrorism in the region.

    Referring to the terrorism in the Tillabéri, Tahoua and Diffa in the northwest, south and southeast of the Niger Republic, and cross border attacks in the Maradi region by terrorists operating from Nigeria, Guterres told President Mohamed Bazoum, that “peace, stability and prosperity in Niger and across the Sahel remains an absolute priority for the United Nations.”

    The UN says in Niger where 80 per cent of the populace depends on agriculture, a combination of climate change and terrorism has forced many off the farms and that 15 per cent of its 25 million people, will require humanitarian assistance in 2022.

    The situation in Nigeria raised the issue of how much the UN and its leadership know and how the state can control access.

    Guterres had visited Borno State this Tuesday and interacted with displaced persons and repentant Boko Haram members.

    Based on this and what he saw, he said: “I want to congratulate the Governor for what I see today. I want to strongly appeal to the international community to understand Borno as a state of hope, to support humanitarian action in Borno, to recognise the enormous challenges that Borno faces with climate change and Boko Haram activities, and to invest in Borno of hope.”

    While this is commendable, the question is why other major areas of terrorism, especially Plateau and Benue states where terrorists, mainly from outside the country, occupy countless towns and villages, pillaging, murdering and seizing the homesteads of the people, were not on the schedule of the UN scribe.

    Just like Borno, these states are devastated with many living for years now in Internally Displaced Peoples camps. Does the Nigerian Government not want these states and their terror victims to be assisted by the UN? Why is the government exhibiting the terrorist activities in the North East for the world to assist while seemingly keeping those in the North Central under wraps?

    This raises the issue of whether during visits to countries, the UN Secretary-General should meet only with governments while leaving out non-state actors. Can this be part of the problem; that the UN scribe is a chief servant with many masters who happen to be the governments of member states? Does humanity need a UN that is faithful to state agents rather than to the human race?

  • United Nations’ Guterres: Chief servant of many masters – By Owei Lakemfa

    THE tours through Europe and Africa from April 26, 2022, by Antonio Guterres, the United Nations Secretary-General, raised once again the powers, importance and relevance of the world body.

    The tours reinforced my analysis that the UN scribe is basically a funambulist, an acrobat walking a tightrope or slack on the world stage. He has to be faithful to many masters with conflicting interests, especially the five permanent members of the UN Security Council each of who, at will, can veto whatever he does or deny him a second term in office as was done to Boutros Boutros-Ghali in 1996.

    When Guterres visited Europe over the Ukrainian Conflict, he was aware that two permanent members, China and Russia, are on one side, and the three other members: the United States, Britain and France, are on the other. It was like a man tiptoeing through a landmine. He had visited Russia before crossing over to Ukraine. He received a barrage of attacks for not visiting Ukraine first. But did it really matter which country he visited first? Secondly, the visit, coming in the third month of the war was late when the UN in the first place, should have prevented the war. True? Can the UN effectively intervene in a war in which its permanent members have no meeting point?

    I think these attacks were tactics meant to intimidate Guterres into feeling some guilt that he had not championed the cause of Ukraine. Ukraine, before this visit, had attacked the UN refugee agency, UNHCR, for not allegedly being effective in addressing the humanitarian crisis in which 12 million persons are in need of assistance. It had also attacked the International Committee of the Red Cross, ICRC, for alleged inaction. In fact, ICRC President, Peter Maurer, who visited Russia, was accused of being in bed with the former.

    In Moscow, Guterres and President Vladimir Putin discussed proposals for humanitarian assistance and evacuation of civilians from conflict zones, especially in the port city of Mariupol where thousands of civilians, Ukrainian troops and non-state far-right combatants remain holed up in the Azovstal steel mill. Guterres said possible war crimes – a refrain of Ukraine and its supporters – will require independent investigation for effective accountability. He proposed the establishment of a tripartite Humanitarian Contact Group comprising Russia, Ukraine and the UN “to look for opportunities for the opening of safe corridors, with local cessations of hostilities, and to guarantee that they are actually effective”.

    The UN scribe raised the energy and food crises the war has caused adding: “This comes on top of the shock of the continued COVID-19 pandemic and uneven access to resources for recovery, that particularly penalize developing countries around the world. So, the sooner peace is established, the better – for the sake of Ukraine, Russia, and for the world.” Guterres who had repeatedly called for ceasefires said: “But it is my deep conviction that the sooner we end this war, the better – for the people of Ukraine, for the people of the Russian Federation, and those far beyond.” But he had no ceasefire plans nor any for a negotiated settlement.

    He was merely a “messenger of peace.” On April 28, Guterres crossed into Ukraine visiting the Kyiv suburbs of Borodianka, Bucha and Irpin, claimed places of war crimes, where he said the “horrific scenario demonstrates something that is, unfortunately, always true: civilians always pay the highest price”.

    He added: “I fully support the International Criminal Court and I appeal to the Russian Federation to accept to cooperate with the International Criminal Court.”

    As in Russia, while he seemed worried about the war and its effects, he did not press for a ceasefire or immediate peace talks. Yet he knew that the war is devastating for humanity. When he flew to Senegal, Guterres told the African continent that its twin challenges of COVID-19 and climate change have with the Ukrainian War, become threefold.

    He emphasised that the war is aggravating a “triple food, energy and financial crisis”, which could push more people into hunger and result in socio-political crises. Guterres is aware that the combatants in Ukraine, their backers and cheerleaders do not want an immediate end to the war, so despite his personal belief, he is not pushing for peace. All he does is make loud lamentations about the war. In the Niger Republic where he arrived on May 2, his theme was about terrorism in the region.

    Referring to the terrorism in the Tillabéri, Tahoua and Diffa in the northwest, south and southeast of the Niger Republic, and cross border attacks in the Maradi region by terrorists operating from Nigeria, Guterres told President Mohamed Bazoum, that “peace, stability and prosperity in Niger and across the Sahel remains an absolute priority for the United Nations.”

    The UN says in Niger where 80 per cent of the populace depends on agriculture, a combination of climate change and terrorism has forced many off the farms and that 15 per cent of its 25 million people, will require humanitarian assistance in 2022.

    The situation in Nigeria raised the issue of how much the UN and its leadership know and how the state can control access.

    Guterres had visited Borno State this Tuesday and interacted with displaced persons and repentant Boko Haram members.

    Based on this and what he saw, he said: “I want to congratulate the Governor for what I see today. I want to strongly appeal to the international community to understand Borno as a state of hope, to support humanitarian action in Borno, to recognise the enormous challenges that Borno faces with climate change and Boko Haram activities, and to invest in Borno of hope.”

    While this is commendable, the question is why other major areas of terrorism, especially Plateau and Benue states where terrorists, mainly from outside the country, occupy countless towns and villages, pillaging, murdering and seizing the homesteads of the people, were not on the schedule of the UN scribe.

    Just like Borno, these states are devastated with many living for years now in Internally Displaced Peoples camps. Does the Nigerian Government not want these states and their terror victims to be assisted by the UN? Why is the government exhibiting the terrorist activities in the North East for the world to assist while seemingly keeping those in the North Central under wraps?

    This raises the issue of whether during visits to countries, the UN Secretary-General should meet only with governments while leaving out non-state actors. Can this be part of the problem; that the UN scribe is a chief servant with many masters who happen to be the governments of member states? Does humanity need a UN that is faithful to state agents rather than to the human race?

  • WAR: UN reveals number  of  journalists killed  in Ukraine

    WAR: UN reveals number of journalists killed in Ukraine

    According to data made available by the United Nations Data department, nothing less than seven journalist covering the Russia-Ukraine war have been killed.

    The UN also revealed that many are also being targeted and facing unprecedented danger while performing their duty since Russia launched its attack in February.

    The report also showed that the last time such a number of journalists were killed was in 2014 when Russia annexed Crimea.

    The alert from UN-appointed independent rights experts, including the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression, cited “numerous reports” that journalists have been “targeted”.

    Reports had it that journalists have been tortured, kidnapped, attacked and killed, or refused safe passage from cities and regions under siege.

    The rights experts, in a statement, stated that Russia’s war against Ukraine had been made easier by the “silencing of critical voices over a prolonged period of time’’.

    They highlighted the blocking of social media platforms and news websites in Russia, and the disruption of foreign media services.

    According to experts, Moscow’s “massive labelling” of independent media as “foreign agents” is a source of concern.

    “We deplore the systematic crackdown on political opponents, independent journalists and the media, human rights activists, protesters and many others opposing the Russian government’s actions.

    “All these measures amount to the creation of a state monopoly on information in blatant violation of Russia’s international obligations,” they stated.

    The rights experts stressed that disinformation is also being spread about Ukraine in Russian State-owned media,

  • Word Press Freedom Day: Adhere strictly to journalism ethics – AMDF urges journalists

    Word Press Freedom Day: Adhere strictly to journalism ethics – AMDF urges journalists

    The Africa Media Development Foundation (AMDF), has called on journalists to adhere strictly to the code of journalism ethics each time they write their stories.

    Mr Iliya Kure, the Executive Director, AMDF, made this known in a statement issued to mark the 2022 World Press Freedom Day (WPFD) on Tuesday in Kaduna.
    Kure said: “The foundation salutes journalists in Africa, and around the world, who remain in the frontline to practice journalism, in spite of attacks, threats, imprisonment, losses and blackmail.
    “As we mark the 2022 World Press Freedom Day, we remember each of the 55 journalists killed worldwide in the last one year (UNESCO figures), who died in line of duty, or because of their journalistic practice.
    “Overtime, press freedom in Africa has remained an issue of concern, with high incidences of violations and attacks on the press by security agents, on the orders of people in authority, and sometimes by aggrieved members of the public, who take the law into their hands.
    “We, therefore, call on governments and security agencies in Africa to respect the freedom of the press at all times.
    According to Kure, the World Press Freedom Day, observed every May 3, is set aside by the United Nations to serve as a reminder to governments, of the need to respect their commitment to press freedom and also a day of reflection among media professionals about issues of press freedom and professional ethics.
    He said: “Like every press freedom stakeholder, AMDF is concerned with increasing cases of harassment, arrests, imprisonment, torture and digital attacks on journalists for no other reason, other than doing their work.
    “AMDF aligns with the 2022 theme, ‘Journalism Under Digital Siege’, which is a reflection of the many challenges confronting journalists in the discharge of their duties.
    He said that it was particularly important because the trend of online attacks on media is significantly increasing with women journalists worst hit.
    “A recent statistic by UNESCO shows a shocking prevalence of harassment online, where nearly three-quarters of female media professionals have experienced online violence linked to their work,” he said.
    He explained that AMDF would, on Thursday May 12, hold a virtual panel discussion via zoom, drawing journalists from different countries of Africa to have discussion on issues about press freedom.
    Kure said that AMDF would continue to speak against impunity and injustice against journalists.
    He called on all stakeholders to join the foundation in the fight for Press Freedom until the press in Africa is free from attacks and violence.
  • UN SG, Antonio Guterres embarks on first mission to Nigeria

    UN SG, Antonio Guterres embarks on first mission to Nigeria

    Secretary-General of the United Nations (UN), Antonio Guterres will on Tuesday 3 May, begin a two-day mission to Nigeria.

    According to a statement by Ronald Kayanja, Director, UN Information Centre (UNIC), during the mission, he will have an audience with President Muhammadu Buhari and Vice President Yemi Osinbajo.

    Guterres is also expected to have an audience with religious leaders; women and youth leaders; the private sector and the diplomatic community.

    “The Secretary-General will visit the Governor of Borno State, Professor Babagana Umara Zulum, in Maiduguri, north-east Nigeria on Tuesday, 3 May and thereafter proceed on a field mission to meet families deeply affected by violence and instability in north-east Nigeria, including people internally displaced and refugees. Mr Guterres will also see first-hand the impact of climate change on vulnerable communities and will assess progress and challenges to the COVID-19 recovery.

    “Secretary-General will have meetings with senior government officials as well as civil society
    representatives, including women, youth groups and religious leaders,” the statement reads.

    TheNewsGuru.com (TNG) reports this will be the first mission of the ninth UNSG to Nigeria.

  • Veto: UN dribbles self in search of relevance – By Owei Lakemfa

    Veto: UN dribbles self in search of relevance – By Owei Lakemfa

    The United Nations Assembly, UNGA, deliberations and resolution on the veto power that was held on Tuesday, April 26, 2022, was two years in the making but was all hot air without substance.

    It was a poor stage drama with a linear plot. The event was like a dog sharpening its teeth over two years for a great bite, only to realize it is toothless. The veto truth stood naked, but the 81 members who moved Tuesday’s motion preferred to wrap it in layers of beautiful words and an inelegant top lace resolution which even the movers cannot explain.

    The General Assembly meeting was a waste of time, its resolution an exercise in self dribble and self deceit gave the mistaken impression that it was moving to address the veto issue while in reality it was engaged in mere motions without movement.

    What the world needs, are not exhibition matches but a reversal of the veto provision that would give power to the General Assembly in line with democratic practices where the vote matters; where the minority will have its say while the majority, it’s the way. To ensure the UN is not misused, resolutions can be carried out or reversed by two-thirds of the Assembly. A case where one country’s vote is greater than the votes of 192 countries combined is unsustainable.

    A situation where three European brothers: Russia, France and neighbouring Britain can team up with their first cousin, the United States, and China, the lone voice from Asia, to dictate to the world, cannot continue. In fact, to show that the Security Council is essentially a European racket, there was a 22-year period from 1949 when following its revolution, China was denied its seat in the Council.

    The veto which essentially grants five countries proprietorial rights over the world body was inserted into the UN Charter at birth in 1945 after the collapse of the 1919 League of Nations. The League had collapsed under its own weight of vengeance against Germany leading to the second European war which was christened the Second World War, WWII. Then, most of the world was under European colonial occupation and the colonized were simply thrown into a war they knew nothing about. It was of no comfort to the colonized whether their oppressors were German, Belgian, Dutch, Briton, American or French.

    The five countries which awarded themselves the veto when the UN was founded are often presented as the gallant victors who saved the world from Hitlerite Germany. The truth, however, is that China, which was under Japanese invasion, was not in a position to declare war against Germany. Russia, Britain and France were initially allies of Hitler, while the US was too timid to join WWII until 27 months into the conflict.

    Britain under Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain sought to appease Germany in the 1930s to the extent of allowing it to seize territories. Britain in fact, regarded Hitlerite Germany as an ally with which it could go into a military alliance to destroy its main enemies: the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, USSR (now inherited by Russia) and Imperial Japan.

    The overwhelming populace of France and their government, supported Hitler and fought on the German side for four-fifth of WWII before switching sides. France which fought the allied forces, including outside Europe, only turned against Germany when it was obvious the latter was losing the war.

    The US in the first two years of WWII declared it was neutral and its Congress refused to support either side of the war until December 7, 1941 when Japan was said to have attacked Pearl Harbour. Even at, it was against Japan it declared war and did not enter WWII until after Germany and Italy declared war on it for attacking their ally, Japan. One week before WWII started, the USSR declared its neutrality by signing the August 23, 1939 “Treaty of Non-Aggression between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics”. Also known as the Molotov- Ribbentrop Pact, the agreement which was planned to last for 10 years was a written guaranteed peace between both countries and a pledge not to aid the enemy of either side.

    So effectively, the USSR was neutral in WWII until June 22, 1941, when Germany unilaterally terminated the agreement by invading it. While the USSR suffered the highest casualty rate in the war with 20-25 million dead, it inflicted the greatest casualties on Germany by killing 76 per cent of the total German military fatalities in WWII.

    In the case of China, it was invaded by an ally of Germany, Japan, from July 7, 1937 –to September 9, 1945; so it merely tried to survive during WWII.

    So the claims that the five permanent members earned their pips saving the world and guaranteeing world peace are not exactly correct. The simple fact is that they were those at the table when the UN was being founded while most of the world either lay in ruins or were colonies.

    It was assumed that unless the five agreed, the UN was doomed; so they were empowered to make decisions that would be binding on all members, including levy war. On the over 200 occasions the veto had been applied, it had been abused; used merely to further political, economic or racial interests such as maintaining minority White rule in Zimbabwe, Apartheid in Namibia and South Africa and Israeli genocide in Palestine.

    This Tuesday’s vote was primarily a farce because it in no way challenged the suffocating veto power; it essentially asks the member wielding the veto to explain its actions which in any case can neither be legally challenged nor overturned.

    If under the new resolution, the General Assembly meets within 10 workdays to listen to why a veto was used and debates it while being aware it has no power to reverse it, is it to exhibit its impotence or a mere moral challenge? Even the Liechtenstein’s U.N. ambassador, Christian Wenaweser, who led 80 co-sponsors of the resolution, hinted at its impotence when she admitted that all it aims to achieve is “to promote the voice of all of us who are not veto holders, and who are not on the Security Council, on matters of international peace and security because they affect all of us”.

    Such exercise in futility is like a dog barking at its owner; what can it do, bite? In any case, even if a dog is to bite, it must have teeth that the General Assembly does not have. Only the death of veto power can transform the United Nations from a rubber stamp assembly to a body reflecting the wishes of most of humanity.

  • Sleep-walking into universal disaster – By Owei Lakemfa

    Sleep-walking into universal disaster – By Owei Lakemfa

    By Owei Lakemfa

    THE siamese twins, India and Pakistan, have virtually been at each other’s throats since the 1947 surgical operation by quack British doctors that separated them.

    Their last dogfight in the skies was in 2019. However, on March 9, 2022, Pakistan with 165 nuclear warheads and India with 156, we’re almost at war. What nearly resulted in conflict was not their fierce differences over Kashmir or any difference for that matter.

    What happened was that India fired a BrahMos Medium range missile into Pakistan’s Punjab Province damaging property. But luckily, no aircraft were flying around and there were no casualties.

    The baffled Pakistanis who traced the missile launch were not sure what to make of it as it was an unarmed supersonic missile. They waited for the direct hotline between the two military chiefs to ring and get an explanation.

    But it remained silent. As the Pakistanis prepared for a possible conflict, they made a complaint to India. That was when two days later, the explanation came with profuse apologies; the Indian Air Force was checking its systems when due to a technical malfunction, the missile went off.

    Pakistan’s National Security Adviser, Moeed Yusuf said: “This missile travelled close to the path of international and domestic commercial airlines and threatened the safety of civilians…It is also highly irresponsible of Indian authorities not to have informed Pakistan immediately that an inadvertent launch of a cruise missile had taken place.”

    With the world saturated by missiles and nuclear arms, it is not impossible that any can be fired due to technical or human errors; in other words, humans can simply sleepwalk into a universal disaster. I often hear an exclamation like: ‘The Devil is a liar’; but in reality, the Devil is a realist; the best way to avoid a nuclear disaster is to rid the world of nuclear weapons. Africans say, you do not go about sniffing what you forbid; if we do not want a biological or nuclear war, why do we go about producing them?

    The United Nations in Article I of its Convention on the Prohibition of Bacteriological and Toxin Weapons, states that: “Each State Party to this Convention undertakes never in any circumstances to develop, produce, stockpile or otherwise acquire or retain microbial or other biological agents, or toxins whatever their origin or method of production, of types and in quantities…” But the issue of biological weapons production is the basis of the current claims and counterclaims in the ongoing Ukrainian war in which Russia on March 6, 2022, announced it had uncovered and captured a number of laboratories where Ukraine, with the aid of the United States, was engaged in the development of biological weapons.

    Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova announced they had discovered that: “Components of biological weapons were being developed in Ukrainian laboratories in direct proximity to Russian territory…During the special military operation in Ukraine, the Kyiv regime was found to have been concealing traces of a military biological programme implemented with funding from the United States Department of Defence”. She also claimed that Russia found messages directing Ukrainian bio-laboratory staff to eradicate “hazardous pathogens of plague, anthrax, rabbit-fever, cholera and other lethal diseases(from) stored reserves of highly hazardous pathogens”.

    The US which before the United Nations vehemently denied the accusations, however, did not accuse the Russians of planting the laboratories nor that American instructions to the Ukrainians to eradicate the hazardous pathogens rather than let them fall into Russian hands are fake.

    The American position was made more problematic when its embassy in Ukraine issued a statement titled: ‘Biological Threat Reduction Program’. In reference to the Russian discoveries, the US Embassy said America “collaborates with partner countries to counter the threat of outbreaks (deliberate, accidental, or natural) of the world’s most dangerous infectious diseases”. The American statement went on to state that: “The Biological Threat Reduction Program’s priorities in Ukraine are to consolidate and secure pathogens and toxins of security concern…”

    When the matter came up in the American Senate, the US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland admitted: “Ukraine has biological-research facilities, which, in fact, we are now quite concerned Russian forces may be seeking to gain control of. So we are working with the Ukrainians on how they can prevent any of those research materials from falling into the hands of Russian forces, should they approach.”

    My concerns are not whether or not the Ukrainian laboratory experiments are for defensive purposes -whatever that means -but that, as it happened in the Indian missile case, there can be accidental discharge or leakage, and before you know it, the world might be battling new pandemics.

    This is also my concern on whether the war in Ukraine might involve the eventual use of nuclear weapons by either Russia or the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, NATO. It may not be deliberate, but human errors like that that happened in the case of Indians can occur. Famous scientist Albert Einstein who initially thought the atomic bomb was a good idea, changed his mind, famously saying: “Mankind invented the atomic bomb, but no mouse would ever construct a mousetrap.” His conclusion was that: “To have security against atomic bombs and against the other biological weapons, we have to prevent war, for if we cannot prevent war every nation will use every means that is at their disposal; and in spite of all promises they make, they will do it.”

    After the atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, humanity swore it must never be repeated. That was in 1945. But nuclear weapons increased to 3,000 in 1955 and to over 37,000 by 1965 (US, 31,000 and the Soviet Union 6,000). At this point, there were demands that nuclear weapons should first be drastically reduced, then eliminated.

    This was one of the hopes in the negotiations of the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty, SALT I signed in 1972. But rather than reduce, there was further proliferation to the extent that they rose to 47,000 by 1975 (US, 27,000 and Soviet Union 20,000) then to 70,300 active weapons in 1986.

    The figures have reduced significantly, but remain very high, with Russia in 2022 having 6,255 nuclear warheads; the US: 5,550; China with 350; France: 290 and United Kingdom: 225 nuclear warheads. Other known nuclear countries are Israel and North Korea. There are others in the queue.

    Despite threats, I am not sure nuclear-proliferating countries can stop others from joining the race; so there is a balance of terror. Yet, humanity and nuclear weapons cannot co-exist; one will have to give way to the other. The way out is decommissioning all nuclear weapons; but will the powerful agree to give up their lethal weapons? I doubt it.

  • Russia rejects ICJ ruling on Ukraine

    Russia rejects ICJ ruling on Ukraine

    Russia has rejected an order from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to halt the use of military force in Ukraine.

    “We cannot pay any heed to this ruling,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov says, the Interfax news agency reports.

    “At the International Court of Justice there is the concept of agreement between the parties.

    “There can be no agreement here,” Peskov says.

    The United Nations’ highest court upheld a lawsuit filed by Ukraine against Russia on Wednesday.

    The court’s president, Joan Donoghue, said in the judgement: “The ‘special military operation’ being conducted by the Russian Federation has resulted in numerous civilian deaths and injuries.”

  • Russia ordered to immediately suspend military operations in Ukraine

    Russia ordered to immediately suspend military operations in Ukraine

    Russia must immediately suspend its military operations in Ukraine, the UN International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled on Wednesday in The Hague.

    By a vote of 13 to two, with Vice-President Kirill Gevorgian of Russia and Judge Xue Hanqin of China dissenting, the ICJ ruled that Russia “shall immediately suspend the military operations that it commenced on Feb. 24.”

    The court’s ruling – the first such verdict handed down by the ‘world court’ since the Russian invasion began – is in response to a suit filed by Ukraine on Feb. 27, accusing Russia of manipulating the concept of genocide to justify its military aggression.

    Although the ICJ’s verdicts are binding, there are doubts whether Moscow will abide by the ruling.

    The court has no direct means of enforcing its rulings.

    In a tweet shortly after the ruling, UN Secretary-General António Guterres said that the majority decision “fully reinforces my repeated appeals for peace.

    The court begins by recalling that on Feb. 26 Ukraine filed an application against Russia concerning “a dispute” on the interpretation, application and fulfillment of the Genocide Convention.

    Ukraine contended that having falsely claimed acts of genocide against the people of the Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts, Russia declared and implemented a “special military operation” to prevent and punish the purported acts.

    The ICJ asked Russia to immediately suspend its attacks and cease all military operations as they were based on Moscow’s stated purpose of preventing or punishing Ukraine for committing genocide.

    The court also noted that Russia had decided not to participate in oral proceedings and later, presented a document setting out its position that in this case, the court lacks jurisdiction and requested it to “refrain from indicating provisional measures and to remove the case from its list.”

    In delivering the ruling, the President of the court Joan Donoghue of the US, outlined that the necessary conditions were met to give the ICJ the authority to indicate provisional measures.

    The president said the conditions were met to give ICJ provisional measure, namely that the rights asserted by Ukraine are plausible and the condition of urgency was met in that acts causing irreparable prejudice can “occur at any moment.”

    “Indeed, any military operation, one on the scale carried out by the Russian Federation on the territory of Ukraine, inevitably causes loss of life, mental and bodily harm and damage to property and to the environment.’’

    On behalf of the World Court, she continued, “the civilian population affected by the present conflict is extremely vulnerable,” adding that Russia’s aggression has resulted in “numerous civilian deaths and injuries…significant material damage, including the destruction of buildings and infrastructure”.

    “Attacks are ongoing and are creating increasingly difficult living conditions for the civilian population. Many persons have no access to the most basic foodstuffs, potable water, electricity, essential medicines or heating.

    “A very large number of people are attempting to flee from the most affected cities under extremely insecure conditions,” she explained.

    The judges were unanimous in their order that both parties refrain from any action that might “aggravate or extend the dispute…or make it more difficult to resolve.”