Parker County proposes to build the eastern segment of a loop north of the City of Weatherford, in Parker County, Texas). This portion of the loop, designated East Loop, is approximately 6.65 miles long. It begins at the intersection of the eastern terminus of the Ric Williamson Memorial Highway (or West Loop) at State Highway 51 north of the city. The proposed route continues eastward for approximately 4 miles, crosses Farm-to-Market 730 before turning south for approximately 2 miles, crosses US Highway 180 at Center Point Road, and follows Center Point Road to terminate at Interstate Highway 20. The East Loop project is owned and funded by Parker County. As a political subdivision of the State of Texas, Parker County is required to comply with the Antiquities Code of Texas (9 Texas Natural Resources Code 191). A permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is also required for the proposed project. Therefore, the USACE, as a federal agency, has the responsibility for complying with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), as amended (Section 106). Section 106 requires consideration of the effects of the proposed project on properties listed in, or determined eligible for, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and ultimately designation as a State Antiquities Landmark (SAL). Freese and Nichols, Inc., the design and environmental consultant to Parker County, contracted with Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc. (CMEC), to conduct the intensive archeological and reconnaissance historic resources surveys necessary for compliance with the Antiquities Code and Section 106. Melissa M. Green (Principal Investigator) and Brett Lang carried out the archeological survey for Parker County under Texas Antiquities Permit 8127, and Emily Reed and Izabella Dennis conducted the historic resources survey; all are staff of CMEC. Fieldwork was conducted in September 2017. Widths of the proposed roadway vary between 120 and 390 feet, but the average width is 200 feet. The archeological area of potential effects (APE) consists of the entire 195.39-acre footprint of new location roadway and a 600-foot long, 30-foot wide drainage ditch easement added to the project for a total 196.62-acre APE. The historic resources APE consists of a 300-foot-wide buffer area around the proposed project corridor. The APE is located primarily on uplands but crosses Willow Creek, Holder Branch, Underwood Branch, and a number of small intermittent channels. The land is mostly undeveloped with some residential/commercial areas, particularly near each terminus, that will be impacted. Ground surfaces within the APE were mostly covered in grasses, allowing for some limited visibility ranging from 0 to 30 percent, though ground visibility in forested areas and eroded pastures allowed for higher ground visibility at 70 to 100 percent. Existing impacts to the project corridor include residential and commercial development, buried utilities and other infrastructures associated with the developments, oil and gas production and storage, stock tank construction, livestock grazing or training, and erosion resulting from all of the above. A total of 48 shovel test units were excavated judgmentally across the area of potential effects; 36 were sterile for cultural materials and 12 were associated with sites. Initially, right-of-entry was not allowed on several individual parcels representing approximately 2.14 miles (48.29 acres) of the proposed corridor during the original survey in September 2017, but were investigated in June and July of 2018 once right-of-entry was granted. Potential for prehistoric archeological deposits in the area of potential effects is considered low, and the potential for historic deposits is considered moderate. The proposed roadway corridor partially impacts previously recorded sites 41PR163/41PR164, 41PR165, and 41PR166, as well as the NRHP-listed Byron Farmstead Historic District. The district comprises 85.5 acres with three recorded archeological sites (41PR163, 41PR164, now combined, and 41PR166), or contributing elements, within its boundary. All of these sites were revisited during the survey. Although located outside of the project corridor, site 41PR163, the original log cabin of the Byron Farmstead, and site 41PR164, the later bungalow on the farmstead were visited due to their close proximity to the project and to help assess the indirect impacts to these sites and contributing elements of the historic district. Based on the field visit, the boundaries of sites 41PR163 and 41PR164 have been adjusted and combined and now include a previously unrecorded dairy location, but contributing element to the district, within the new combined site limit (41PR163/41PR164). Since site 41PR163/41PR164 is already a contributing element of the Byron Farmstead Historic District, it is recommended for designation as a SAL. Site 41PR166 is the dairy operation owned by a separate family member and not originally a contributing element to the district. The site is mostly intact and retains most of its integrity. It has now been recommended as a contributing element to the historic district, and ultimately for SAL designation, demonstrating the long-time use of the larger property for and family commitment to cattle and dairying. Site 41PR166 will be partially impacted by the proposed road corridor. In addition to the archeological sites located on the Byron Farmstead Historic District, there are three contributing buildings, two contributing structures, one contributing site, and one noncontributing site. For unknown reasons, an additional 13 resources located within the historic district's boundary were not documented in the NRHP nomination form or assigned contributing/non-contributing status. As a result of this survey, eight of the previously undocumented resources are recommended as contributing and five are recommended as non-contributing to the Byron Farmstead Historic District. Due to the construction of the proposed roadway through the Byron Farmstead Historic District, there would be an adverse effect on the district by diminishing the integrity of feeling, setting, and association. Although previously recorded site 41PR165, remnants of a small farmstead, would be partially impacted by the proposed roadway corridor, it is recommended not eligible for listing in the NRHP or for designation as a SAL because it does not retain integrity and none of the remaining components would add any additional information concerning cattle ranching in the area. One additional historic site, 41PR185, was recorded during the survey. This site is a farmstead on a hilltop west of Holder Branch measuring 35 meters east/west by 55 meters north/south. The site is composed of a collapsed rock root cellar, rock and mortar pile, six fence posts, and large sections of sheet metal siding. The site will be entirely impacted by the proposed construction, but is recommended as not eligible for listing in the NRHP or for SAL designation. All materials (notes, photographs, administrative documents, and other project data) generated from this work will be housed at the Center for Archaeological Studies at Texas State University in San Marcos, where they will be made permanently available to future researchers per 13 Texas Administrative Code 26.16-17. CMEC submitted the previous version of this report to the Texas Historical Commission (THC) on March 1, 2018, for review. In the response letter dated March 30, 2018, THC concurred with the eligibility recommendations for the historic resources, and requested additional information regarding recorded archeological sites. THC also requested further review of the applicability of Section 106 in relationship to the USACE areas of jurisdiction (Appendix B). Since that time, USACE has indicated Section 106 is applicable to the Byron Farmstead Historic District, and CMEC has been granted access to previously inaccessible parcels to complete the archeological survey. This version of the report has been updated to provide additional information from the archeological survey and to reflect the applicability of Section 106, including an assessment of effects to historic properties and archeological sites. If any unanticipated cultural materials or deposits are found at any stage of clearing, preparation, or construction, the work should cease and THC personnel should be notified immediately.
The issue of non-return of rejected international protection applicants does not enjoy a high political profile on its own, but has been discussed as part of a global debate on asylum. Significant efforts are required when considering the wide spectrum of possible reasons of non-return, some reasons depending on the countries of destination, others on the returnee himself/herself. In this respect, reasons of non return range from the non-respect of deadlines, the issuance of travel documents, postponement of removal for external reasons to the returnee, for medical reasons, the resistance of the third-country national and the lack of diplomatic representation of Luxembourg, to name but a few. In regards to the procedure, in Luxembourg the rejection of the international protection application includes the return decision. The Minister in charge of Immigration, through the Directorate of Immigration, issues this decision. The return decision only becomes enforceable when all appeals are exhausted and the final negative decision of rejection of the competent judicial authority enters into force, as appeals have suspensive effects. This decision also sets out the timeframe during which the rejected international protection applicant has to leave the country. In case the applicant does not opt for a voluntary return, the decision will also include the country to which s/he will be sent. In general, the decision provides for a period of 30 days during which the applicant has the option to leave voluntarily and to benefit from financial support in case of assisted voluntary return through the International Organization for Migration (IOM). There are two exceptions to this rule: the applicant who is considered a threat to national security, public safety or homeland security and the applicant who has already been issued a return decision before. The declaration and documentation provided during the procedure of international protection can be used to facilitate return. Subsequent applications are possible, in particular if new evidence of facts appears resulting in an increased likelihood of the applicant to qualify for international protection. For rejected international protection applicants who did not opt for voluntary return and did not receive any postponement of removals, a certain (limited) support is available while waiting for the execution of the enforceable return decision. As such, they continue to stay in reception facilities and to receive certain social benefits unless they transgress any internal rules. If an urgent need exists, rejected applicants may be granted a humanitarian social aid. However, they are not entitled to access the labour market or to receive 'pocket money' or the free use of transport facilities. They benefit from an access to education and training, however this access cannot constitute a possible reason for non-return. These benefits are available to rejected applicants until the moment of their removal. In order to enforce the return decision and prevent absconding, the Minister may place the rejected international applicant in the detention centre, especially if s/he is deemed to be obstructing their own return. Other possible measures include house arrest, regular reporting surrendering her/his passport or depositing a financial guarantee of 5000€. Most of these alternatives to detention were introduced with the Law of 18 December 2015 which entered into force on 1st January 2016. As a consequence, detention remains the main measure used to enforce return decisions. A number of challenges to return and measures to curb them are detailed in this study. A part of these measures have been set up to minimize the resistance to return from the returnee. First and foremost is the advocacy of the AVRR programme and the dissemination of information relating to this programme but also the establishment of a specific return programme to West Balkan countries not subject to visa requirements. Other measures aim at facilitating the execution of forced returns, such as police escorts or the placement in the detention centre. Finally, significant efforts are directed towards increasing bilateral cooperation and a constant commitment to the conclusion of readmission agreements. No special measures were introduced after 2014 in response to the exceptional flows of international protection applicants arriving in the EU. While the Return service within the Directorate of Immigration has continued to expand its participation to European Networks and in various transnational projects in matters of return, this participation was already set into motion prior to the exceptional flows of 2014. As for effective measures curbing challenges to return, this study brings to light the AVRR programme but especially the separate return programme for returnees from West Balkan countries exempt of visa requirements. The dissemination of information on voluntary return is also considered an effective policy measure, the information being made available from the very start of the international protection application. Among the cases where return is not immediately possible, a considerable distinction has to be made in regards to the reasons for the non-return. Indeed, in cases where the delay is due to the medical condition of the returnee or to material and technical reasons that are external to the returnee, a postponement of removal will be granted. This postponement allows for the rejected applicant to remain on the territory on a temporary basis, without being authorized to reside and may be accompanied by a measure of house arrest or other. In cases of postponement for medical reasons and of subsequent renewals bringing the total length of postponement over two years, the rejected applicant may apply for a residence permit for private reasons based on humanitarian grounds of exceptional seriousness. Nevertheless, apart from this exception, no official status is granted to individuals who cannot immediately be returned. Several measures of support are available to beneficiaries of postponement to removal: they have access to accommodation in the reception centres they were housed in during their procedure, they may be attributed humanitarian aid, they continue to be affiliated at the National Health Fund, they continue to have access to education and professional training and they are allowed to work through a temporary work authorization. The temporary work authorization is only valid for a single profession and a single employer for the duration of the postponement to removal, although this is an extremely rare occurrence in practice. OLAI may allocate a humanitarian aid might be allocated if the individual was already assisted by OLAI during the procedure of her/his international protection application. All of these measures apply until the moment of return. The study also puts forth a number of best practices such as the Croix-Rouge's involvement in police trainings, their offer of punctual support to vulnerable people through international networking or the socio-psychological support given to vulnerable people placed in the detention centre among others. A special regard has to be given to AVRR programmes and their pre-departure information and counselling, the dissemination of information and the post-arrival support and reintegration assistance. Indeed, stakeholders singled the AVRR programme out as a best practice and the Luxembourgish government has made voluntary return a policy priority for a long time. However, this increased interest in voluntary returns has to be put into perspective as research shows that sustainable success of voluntary return and reintegration measures is only achieved for a very restricted number of beneficiaries (namely for young, autonomous and dynamic returnees with sizeable social networks and who were granted substantial social capital upon return). Hence, returning women remains a sensitive issue, especially if they were fleeing abusive relationships. Another factor contributing to hardship set forth by research is the difficult reintegration of returnees that have lived outside of their country of return for a prolonged period of time and are therefore unable to rely on social networks for support or for a sense of belonging. Based on these considerations, NGOs and academia cast doubts on the 'voluntary' nature of these return programmes, their criticism targeting the misleading labelling of these policy measures.
Eine dauerhafte Verfügbarkeit ist nicht garantiert und liegt vollumfänglich in den Händen der Herausgeber:innen. Bitte erstellen Sie sich selbständig eine Kopie falls Sie diese Quelle zitieren möchten.
US President Joe Biden is walking on thin ice while he attempts to deal with the most serious crisis in the Middle East since the ill-conceived US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. Biden has orientated his administration's action along three tracks: supporting Israel; protecting as many Palestinian civilians as possible while also resuscitating the defunct Middle East peace process; and preventing the conflict from extending to the wider region.[1] The problem is, reconciling these three priorities may be impossible.Priority #1: Supporting Israel Biden's support for Israel, which he expressed most tangibly by travelling to Tel Aviv, ostensibly involves a US endorsement of the Israeli government's goal of eliminating Hamas, the Islamist group that controls Gaza.[2] Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, has reaffirmed his government's commitment to that goal[3] as the only possible response to the 7 October murderous attack by Hamas that left over 1,400 people dead, regardless of age and gender.[4] Rooting out Hamas from Gaza is no insignificant feat. In fact, it warrants a massive military effort. The Islamist group may have between 15 and 40,000 fighters and, in all likelihood, is bracing itself for an Israeli ground invasion.[5] Hamas counts on taking advantage of the hundreds of kilometres-long network of underground tunnels underneath Gaza to entangle Israeli troops in ferocious urban warfare, which would diminish the Israeli overwhelming advantage in technology and armaments.[6]Priority #2: Protecting civilians The course of the campaign, which is expected to be tough, bloody and with no guarantee of success, contrasts sharply with Biden's second priority, namely safeguarding civilian lives and relaunching Israeli-Palestinian diplomacy. The air campaign that Israel has been conducting in preparation for the ground offensive has already caused massive losses. Palestinian sources speak of about 8,000 people killed in the air raids – again, the majority of them civilians and over one thousand children.[7] While hard to verify independently, these figures are not unrealistic. UN agencies still on the field have reported that about 670,000 Gazans have taken shelter in UN-designated areas and an estimated 1.4 million people have been displaced.[8] Satellite images show entire neighbourhoods entirely flattened out by Israel's relentless bombardments.[9] Adding misery to devastation is the mounting humanitarian crisis triggered by Israel's decision to cut fuel, electricity and food flows into Gaza and curtail water supply.[10] The ground campaign cannot but worsen further the predicament of Gaza's Palestinians, who may be forced to seek refuge outside the Strip, although so far Egypt (which shares a border with Gaza) has ruled out the possibility of building refugee camps on its soil. It is worth emphasising that almost half of Gaza's 2.3 million people is already made up of refugees from previous conflicts.Priority #3: Containing the war Against this backdrop, preventing an escalation of the war beyond Gaza is going to be hard indeed for Biden. At the moment neither of Hamas' main allies, Iran and Hezbollah, the Islamist group that controls southern Lebanon, have an interest in joining the fight. Their preferred option would be to see Israeli forces suffering heavy casualties in Gaza during an operation that began eroding international support for Israel even before it had started. However, if the ground offensive were to result in a massive displacement of Palestinians from Gaza or get near to the objective of annihilating Hamas, Iran and Hezbollah's calculus would most likely change.[11] Hezbollah and pro-Iran forces in Syria would retaliate by opening a new front along Israel's northern border with extensive launch of rockets and missiles (Hezbollah's arsenal is estimated to be far larger and more sophisticated than any other group in the area).[12] Iran has fired warning shots by moving its proxy groups in Syria closer to the border with Israel and urging others to carry out minor drone and rocket attacks against US bases in Iraq and Syria itself.[13] In the worst-case scenario, Iran would activate its allies and proxies across the region to hit US targets. States that have normalised relations with Israel, like the United Arab Emirates, or were in the process of doing so before 7 October, like Saudi Arabia, could also come under fire, directly from the Houthis, the Iran-backed group in Yemen, or indirectly through sabotage and other forms of attacks in the Persian Gulf or the Gulf of Oman. The point for Iran and its allies would be to pressure Washington and its Arab partners to curb Israel. But the United States is more likely to double down on its support for Israel rather than the other way round if a second (and a third, fourth…) front is open.Is there a way out? The plan to eliminate Hamas is thus hard to achieve militarily, extremely costly in terms of human losses and potentially explosive for its regional ramifications. In addition, it has for the moment not been linked to any political strategy. Even if Hamas were destroyed to its last member, the problem of what to do with Gaza afterwards would remain. There are no credible solutions to this problem.[14] A renewed Israeli occupation is not on the cards given its high military, political and economic costs and risks of exposing Israeli soldiers to constant attacks. Entrusting the Palestinian Authority (PA) with governing Gaza would also be problematic, given that the PA is already discredited in the eyes of most Palestinians and would be further delegitimised by the fact that it would be seen as an Israeli agent. Nor is it plausible that Arab countries – Egypt, Qatar and Saudi Arabia being the most likely candidates – agree to take on the massive burden of running Gaza's 2.3 million people. What, then, can the Biden Administration realistically hope to achieve? The United States has reportedly been pushing the Israelis to accord preference to the liberation of the hundreds of hostages held captive by Hamas as well as to clarify what the objectives of the ground offensive are.[15] The point is whether it is possible to keep the offensive below the threshold under which an escalation would become all but impossible to stop. The implicit premise of this reasoning is that Israel could be content with degrading Hamas' military capabilities to the point it attains a permanent containment of it, but would not necessarily seek the total elimination of it. This re-orientation of the ground offensive involves that it should be compatible with the resumption of aid flows into Gaza and the creation of safe zones for civilians, which is a tall order. It also involves that the vast deployment of forces to the Mediterranean and the Red Sea by the United States is sufficient to persuade Iran and Hezbollah to accept a significant downgrading of their Palestinian ally.[16] As shown by the recent air strikes against Iranian proxies in Syria, the Biden Administration is willing to engage in limited military engagements to reinforce the message.[17] Whether that is enough to deter Iran and Hezbollah remains to be seen, however.A never-ending tragedy Biden's diplomatic and military efforts are an instance of extreme balancing. The early stages of the Israeli ground offensive could in theory still be compatible with a re-orientation of its aims, yet that possibility diminishes by the day. If Biden fails to rebalance US diplomacy in keeping with all three priorities (and not just the first one), the prospect of a generalised conflict in the Middle East could materialise. Such a conflict would involve immense human loss (even in the hundreds of thousands), massive insecurity spillovers into adjacent regions and probably a negative impact on the world economy. The United States would be drawn into a war it did not plan and in which its strategic interests are dubious – certainly inferior to the imperative to defeat Russia in Ukraine and manage competition with China. Even if the US president were to succeed in preventing an escalation, the risk of another outbreak of large-scale violence in Palestine would just be postponed by a few years into the future. In the absence of a major diplomatic initiative for which neither the political conditions nor viable practical solutions are in sight, the reality of a decades-old occupation, in which the repression of basic human rights of millions of Palestinians will continue fuelling forms of extreme radicalism to which Israel cannot but respond with further violence, will remain unaltered. That this bleak scenario is the best we can realistically hope for to avoid even worse developments is eloquent and disheartening evidence of the scale of the tragedy playing out in the Middle East.Riccardo Alcaro is Research Coordinator and Head of the Global Actors Programme at the Istituto Affari Internazionali (IAI).[1] White House, Remarks by President Biden on the United States' Response to Hamas's Terrorist Attacks Against Israel and Russia's Ongoing Brutal War Against Ukraine, 20 October 2023, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2023/10/20/remarks-by-president-biden-on-the-unites-states-response-to-hamass-terrorist-attacks-against-israel-and-russias-ongoing-brutal-war-against-ukraine.[2] White House, Remarks by President Biden and Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel Before Bilateral Meeting, Tel Aviv, 18 October 2023, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2023/10/18/remarks-by-president-biden-and-prime-minister-netanyahu-of-israel-before-bilateral-meeting-tel-aviv-israel.[3] John Reed, Felicia Schwartz and Demetri Sevastopulo, "Israel 'Preparing Ground Invasion' of Gaza, Says Netanyahu", in Financial Times, 25 October 2023, https://www.ft.com/content/e4e08e18-ad98-4c37-a620-570d3800dbea.[4] Doron Berti and Miron Maman, "Israelis Ink the Memory of Deadly Attacks onto Their Skin", in Reuters, 19 October 2023, http://reut.rs/3tCnVx0.[5] Loveday Morris and Steve Hendrix, "Documents Found on Fighters Reveal Hamas Capabilities, Bloody Plans", in The Washington Post, 22 October 2023, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/10/21/hamas-documents-plans-israel-attack.[6] Asa Fitch and Rory Jones, "Map: Tunnels Under Gaza Made by Hamas, Identified by Israel", in The Wall Street Journal, 20 October 2023, https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/israel-hamas-war-gaza-strip-conflict/card/YY9IenGS27zQ0mIQvS5n; Max Boot, "Israel's Ground War Against Hamas: What to Know", in CFR In Briefs, 23 October 2023, https://www.cfr.org/node/249248.[7] Wafaa Shurafa and Samy Magdy, "Palestinian Death Toll Passes 8,000 as U.N. Aid Warehouses Suffer Break-Ins", in Time, 29 October 2023, https://time.com/6329691/gaza-palestinian-death-toll-aid-warehouses.[8] OCHA, Hostilities in the Gaza Strip and Israel. Flash Update #23, 29 October 2023, https://www.ochaopt.org/content/hostilities-gaza-strip-and-israel-flash-update-23.[9] Olive Enokido-Lineham, "Satellite Images Show Gaza Reduced to Rubble After Israeli Strikes", in Sky News, 12 October 2023, https://news.sky.com/story/from-the-sky-and-on-the-ground-gaza-destruction-revealed-after-israeli-strikes-12982465.[10] Sari Bashi, "Israel Still Blocking Aid to Civilians in Gaza", in HRW Dispatches, 23 October 2023, https://www.hrw.org/node/386289.[11] Heiko Wimmen, "Deterrence between Israel and Hizbollah Must Hold", in Crisis Group Commentaries, 14 October 2023, https://www.crisisgroup.org/node/21634.[12] Missile Threat, Missiles and Rockets of Hezbollah, last updated on 10 August 2021, https://missilethreat.csis.org/?p=4179.[13] Institute for the Study of War, Israel-Hamas War (Iran Updates), last updated on 29 October 2023, https://understandingwar.org/node/5597.[14] Lawrence Freedman, "No End in Sight: Israel's Search for a Gaza Strategy", in Financial Times, 14 October 2023, https://www.ft.com/content/03b8ea8a-891d-4457-811f-27448ced6c7b.[15] Edward Wong et al., "U.S. Advises Israel to Delay Gaza Invasion, Officials Say", in The New York Times, 22 October 2023, https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/22/us/politics/us-hostages-israel-gaza.html.[16] Jim Garamone, "DOD Officials Detail Department's Goals in Middle East", in DOD News, 24 October 2023, https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/3566752.[17] Felicia Schwartz and James Shotter, "US Strikes Iran-linked Targets in Syria", in Financial Times, 27 October 2023, https://www.ft.com/content/051074d1-189f-4d31-bf28-2434679a42d9.
Satisfied with some important progress being made in health care reform on the home front, these past few days President Obama turned his full attention to foreign policy. In a week packed with international speeches, bilateral meetings and joint declarations, he succeeded in establishing a new ambitious agenda for international cooperation and wasted no time in getting started. In his speech to the UN, he outlined his main foreign policy goals based on four pillars: non-proliferation, climate change, Middle East peace and economic stability. He spoke clearly about his determination to put an end to the international skepticism and distrust the United States faced during the Bush years and enumerated the changes already made: banning the use of torture, closing the Guantánamo base, drawing down forces in Iraq, renewing efforts in the Arab-Israeli conflict by naming a special envoy, seriously addressing climate change and abandoning plans for a land-based missile defense in Eastern Europe. He challenged other leaders to respond in kind by joining US efforts at non-proliferation, fighting terrorism, taking measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and combating poverty. A day later in Pittsburgh for the G-20 summit, the President, flanked by British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Sarkozy, revealed a new nuclear facility built by Iran in the city of Qum and called for further sanctions on the Islamic Republic. This well-timed revelation is supposed to give the administration some more leverage when talks with the Iranians start later this week. As it happens, the US had known about this new uranium enriching plant for more than a year but had kept the information secret for later use. In Pittsburgh, with France and Britain safely on his side, the President had further opportunity to press the other two members of the UN Security Council, Russia and China, to cooperate with the new sanctions regime that will most likely include imports of refined oil into Iran. While Russia appears to be leaning towards cooperation (perhaps as a quid pro quo of Obama's decision not to deploy the anti-missile defense system in Poland and Czech Republic), it is not as yet clear whether the Chinese will too. This week has been a good one for China, which seems to be coming of age as an international player both in climate change and as a partner for economic stability in the G-20. But the revelation at Qum was certainly a pre-emptive coup that put the Iranians on the defensive, and gave Obama an opportunity to publicly test the other Permanent Members of the Security Council to prove their commitment to non-proliferation.As the United States moves aggressively to engage with the rest of the world and vows to renew its pledge to international law and institutions, the expectation is that others will take their share of responsibility and respond to global challenges. Obama's moral authority flows not only from what he says, and how he says it, but also by virtue of who he is: in his case, the man is the message and the intended drastic cut with his predecessor could not be more apparent. However, as Realists constantly remind us, foreign policy is about national interest defined as power, and while the change of tone and of emissary is well-noted, we are likely to see some change, but also a lot of continuity in US foreign policy. Barack Obama's first speech at the United Nations General Assembly was well-received around the world but had less impact on a home audience whose main concerns are unemployment, health care reform and economic recovery. Inevitably, the usual suspects accused him of treason for recognizing America's past mistakes in public and for socializing with tyrants. Others denounced his narcissistic impulses, for trying to portray American foreign policy as "all about Obama". While it is easy to dismiss the extreme critics, it is important for the rest of the world to realize how much the United Nations' legitimacy and prestige has suffered in the United States during the last ten years, and not only due to derisions by Bolton and Bush. TV images of the UN headquarters in New York seem distant and irrelevant to most Americans, who view the organization as an anachronistic shibboleth that embodies all fluff and no substance and whose activities are hard to take seriously in most cases, be it when it deals with Rwanda, Darfur or with Iranian sanctions. At this year's opening session, the General Assembly room, with a badly lit podium and a very unbecoming blue-greenish background, was showing its age in spite of a 2002 facelift (it was built in 1952). And while Obama was as dynamic and articulate as usual, his televised speech was followed by that of Mohammad Khadafy from Libya, which lasted one hour and a half and included bizarre statements and phrases that can only be accounted for by a serious onset of senility. Besides calling for a UN investigation of John F. Kennedy's assassination, and surreally complaining about how far most of those present had had to travel to get to New York (was jetlag his excuse to explain away his own state of mental confusion?), he repeatedly called President Obama "my son" (I cringed at imagining the right wing blogs reaction to that) and referred to the UN Security Council as the "Terror Council". His difficulty to find a place in New York where he would be allowed to pitch his tent was followed with amusement by the media and further added to his own oddity, and by extension, to the inadequacy of the UN as a serious forum. While later Prime Minister Netanyahu's excellent, Churchill-like speech brought the audience back to the 21st century and restored some respectability to the venue, the UN lost credibility again when Iranian president Ahmadinejad went on a new rant later in the day and again and proceeded once more to deny the Holocaust's existence. In addition to this rarified atmosphere, the main foreign policy topic that is of concern for the American public, and the one that would have made them pay attention, namely, the war in Afghanistan was hardly mentioned by Obama in this occasion. After eight years of war in Afghanistan, the effort seems to be unraveling on all fronts. European NATO members, whose soldiers are fighting and dying in Afghanistan, are unwilling or unable to commit more troops; the Taliban has renewed its offensives with new intensity in the south and the east of the country, and the Afghan election was plagued with corruption, proving what many already suspected, that President Hamid Karzai is an extremely unreliable partner and a corrupt leader who will not be able to hold the country together. At the same time, Al Qaeda has found refuge in neighboring Pakistan so the US initial counterterrorist mission, namely to hunt down and exterminate Al Qaeda, has mutated into one of counterinsurgency against an indigenous group, the Taliban, fighting against the government and the foreign forces to regain its power. All this in a country that has never been a nation, a narco-state whose economic base is the production and trafficking of opium, and where several empires, from the Macedonians to the British and the Soviets were once defeated. The President's plan so far has been to train the Afghan army so that it can hold off the Taliban, support government institutions, gain the trust of villagers and create structures of governance in rural areas so that Al Qaeda won't be able to move in again. This week a Pentagon memo by General Crystal was leaked by Bob Woodward of Watergate fame. Published in the Washington Post on September 21st, it presents a grim picture of the war and warns that success is uncertain. It calls for new resources and a new counterinsurgency campaign. While the number of troops requested is not specified, it warns that "under-resourcing" the effort could be fatal. Woodward, never one to sell himself short, has called his leaked memo the equivalent of the 1971 Pentagon Papers leaked by Daniel Ellsberg in the New York Times, which revealed the expansion of the Vietnam War from 1965 on, that had been kept secret from the American public. Of course the memo is not the equivalent of Ellsberg and Russo's revelations, but still, it refocused attention on the intractability of this war. The President's response has been that after the Afghan election, the White House is re-assessing its strategy and that until he is satisfied with a new strategy he will not send more troops. It is clear that the administration is having doubts about a conflict it once called a war of necessity. Public opinion is also turning against what will soon be the longest war in American history, as casualties continue to increase and there is no end in sight. As the term "military surge" is being increasingly used to denote McCrystal's new demands, comparisons with the war in Iraq are inevitable. Similarly to the Iraq war, elections have represented a turning point. But the surge in Iraq began with the so-called Sunni awakening, when the Iraqis themselves decided they had had enough of the violence and organized against those that insisted on it (mainly outsiders, Al Qaeda-in-Iraq). Also, in Iraq's leader Al-Maliki, the US found a relatively reliable and legitimate partner, one who instigated the political class to resolve their differences by political means. Finally, Iraq had an economic base that could be restored to produce substantial national wealth, and a mostly urban, well-educated population with some institutional experience. In contrast, Afghanistan is a mainly rural country, a tribal society which repudiates any attempts at centralization and profoundly distrusts the government in Kabul more, in some cases, than the foreign troops. The central government is rotten and weak, Karzai an unreliable leader who stole the election and whose brother is the head of the drug mafia. Can more US troops make up for all these weaknesses?Obama is thus in a delicate situation: he can't be "at war" with his own generals (indeed, General McCrystal was appointed by Obama only in March, after he dismissed the previous general in charge). On the other hand, if he allows more troops to be deployed, there is danger that Afghanistan may become his Vietnam. He therefore needs to choose between continuing a counterinsurgency operation, training more Afghan forces, protecting the local populations, getting into their villages and gaining their trust, or withdrawing ground troops and focusing on counter-terrorism, using drones and other off-shore means and special forces to go after the terrorist bases. Vice-President Biden is advocating a middle ground strategy: leaving enough troops on the ground to prevent Al Qaeda from returning to Afghanistan, but redefining the mission as one of narrow counter-terrorism and move away from nation-building and a protracted counter-insurgency operation that would signify more US casualties and more discontent at home. After all, the main reason why the US went to Afghanistan was to confront and eliminate Al Qaeda, which has since then moved across the border to the tribal areas of Pakistan. As several domestic arrests have demonstrated this week, Al Qaeda threats are just as likely to come from Springfield Illinois, Queens New York or Dallas Texas as from abroad or from the virtual Al Qaeda organizing through the worldwide web. Recalibrating his approach to Afghanistan is thus imperative, and it must be done for the right reasons, regardless of personal gain or saving face.Obama has had a very successful September, but his ambitious agenda both at home and abroad faces many pitfalls ahead. A youthful president, brimming with self-confidence, with a huge electoral mandate and with the best team of experts in history, can still be thwarted by unsolvable problems, domestic and foreign enemies and by serendipity itself. As a student of history and a John F Kennedy admirer, Obama knows this, and he should measure his decisions and temper his ambitions accordingly. Senior Lecturer, Department of Political Science and Geography Director, ODU Model United Nations Program Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia
Threats To International Peace And Security. The Situation In The Middle East ; United Nations S/PV.8233 Security Council Seventy-third year 8233rd meeting Saturday, 14 April 2018, 11 a.m. New York Provisional President: Mr. Meza-Cuadra . (Peru) Members: Bolivia (Plurinational State of). . Mr. Llorentty Solíz China. . Mr. Ma Zhaoxu Côte d'Ivoire. . Mr. Tanoh-Boutchoue Equatorial Guinea. . Mr. Ndong Mba Ethiopia. . Mr. Alemu France. . Mr. Delattre Kazakhstan. . Mr. Umarov Kuwait. . Mr. Alotaibi Netherlands. . Mrs. Gregoire Van Haaren Poland. . Mr. Radomski Russian Federation. . Mr. Nebenzia Sweden . Mr. Skoog United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland . Ms. Pierce United States of America. . Mrs. Haley Agenda Threats to international peace and security The situation in the Middle East This record contains the text of speeches delivered in English and of the translation of speeches delivered in other languages. The final text will be printed in the Official Records of the Security Council. Corrections should be submitted to the original languages only. They should be incorporated in a copy of the record and sent under the signature of a member of the delegation concerned to the Chief of the Verbatim Reporting Service, room U-0506 (verbatimrecords@un.org). Corrected records will be reissued electronically on the Official Document System of the United Nations (http://documents.un.org). 18-10891 (E) *1810891* S/PV.8233 Threats to international peace and security 14/04/2018 2/26 18-10891 The meeting was called to order at 11.10 a.m. Adoption of the agenda The agenda was adopted. Threats to international peace and security The situation in the Middle East The President (spoke in Spanish): In accordance with rule 37 of the Council's provisional rules of procedure, I invite the representative of the Syrian Arab Republic to participate in this meeting. The Security Council will now begin its consideration of the item on its agenda. I wish to warmly welcome His Excellency Secretary-General António Guterres, to whom I now give the floor. The Secretary-General: I have been following closely the reports of air strikes in Syria conducted by the United States, France and United Kingdom. Last night at 10 p.m. New York time, the United States President announced the beginning of air strikes with the participation of France and the United Kingdom, indicating they were targeting the chemical-weapons capabilities of the Syrian Government to deter their future use. The statement was followed by announcements from Prime Minister May and President Macron. The air strikes were reportedly limited to three military locations inside Syria. The first targets included the Syrian Scientific Studies and Research Centre at Al-Mazzah airport in Damascus, the second an alleged chemical-weapons storage facility west of Homs and the third an alleged chemical-weapons equipment storage site and command post, also near Homs. The Syrian Government announced surface-to-air missile responsive activity. Both United States and Russian sources indicated there were no civilian casualties. However, the United Nations is unable to independently verify the details of all those reports. As Secretary-General of the United Nations, it is my duty to remind Member States that there is an obligation, particularly when dealing with matters of peace and security, to act consistently with the Charter of the United Nations, and with international law in general. The Charter is very clear on these issues. The Security Council has the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. I call on the members of the Security Council to unite and exercise that responsibility, and I urge all members to show restraint in these dangerous circumstances and to avoid any act that could escalate matters and worsen the suffering of the Syrian people. As I did yesterday (see S/PV.8231), I stress the importance of preventing the situation from spiralling out of control. Any use of chemical weapons is abhorrent, and the suffering it causes is horrendous. I have repeatedly expressed my deep disappointment that the Security Council has failed to agree on a dedicated mechanism for ensuring effective accountability for the use of chemical weapons in Syria. I urge the Security Council to assume its responsibilities and fill that gap, and I will continue to engage with Member States to help to achieve that objective. A lack of accountability emboldens those who use such weapons by providing them with the reassurance of impunity, and that in turn further weakens the norm proscribing the use of chemical weapons, as well as undermining the international disarmament and non-proliferation architecture as a whole. The seriousness of the recent allegations of the use of chemical weapons in Douma requires a thorough investigation using impartial, independent and professional expertise. I reaffirm my full support for the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and its Fact-finding Mission in the Syrian Arab Republic in undertaking the required investigation. The team is already in Syria. I am informed that its operations plan for visiting the site is complete and that the Mission is ready to go. I am confident it will have full access, without any restrictions or impediments to its performance of its activities. To repeat what I said yesterday, Syria represents the most serious threat to international peace and security in the world today. In Syria we see confrontations and proxy wars involving several national armies, a number of armed opposition groups, many national and international militias, foreign fighters from all over the world and various terrorist organizations. From the beginning, we have witnessed systematic violations of international humanitarian law, international human rights law and international law in general, in utter disregard of the letter and spirit of the Charter of the United Nations. For eight long years, the people of Syria have endured suffering upon suffering. They have lived 14/04/2018 Threats to international peace and security S/PV.8233 18-10891 3/26 through a litany of horrors, atrocity crimes, sieges, starvation, indiscriminate attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure, the use of chemical weapons, forced displacement, sexual violence, torture, detention and enforced disappearances. The list goes on. At this critical juncture, I call on all States Members to act consistently with the Charter of the United Nations and international law, including the norms against chemical weapons. If the law is ignored, it is undermined. There can be no military solution to the crisis. The solution must be political, and we must find ways to make real progress towards a genuine and credible political solution that meets the aspirations of the Syrian people to dignity and freedom, in accordance with resolution 2254 (2015) and the Geneva communiqué (S/2012/522, annex). I have asked my Special Envoy to come to New York as soon as possible to consult with me on the most effective way to accelerate the political process. The President (spoke in Spanish): I thank the Secretary-General for his valuable briefing. I shall now give the floor to those Council members who wish to make statements. Mr. Nebenzia (Russian Federation) (spoke in Russian): Russia has called this emergency meeting of the Security Council to discuss the aggressive actions of the United States and its allies against Syria. This is now our fifth meeting on the subject in a week. President Putin of the Russian Federation made a special statement today. "On 14 April, the United States, with the support of its allies, launched an air strike on military and civilian infrastructure targets in the Syrian Arab Republic. An act of aggression against a sovereign State on the front lines in the fight against terrorism was committed without permission from the Security Council and in violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the norms and principles of international law. Just as it did a year ago, when it attacked Syria's Al-Shayrat airbase in Syria, the United States took a staged use of toxic substances against civilians as a pretext, this time in Douma, outside Damascus. Having visited the site of the alleged incident, Russian military experts found no traces of chlorine or any other toxic agent. Not a single local resident could confirm that such an attack had occurred. "The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) has sent experts to Syria to investigate all the circumstances. However, a group of Western countries cynically ignored this and took military action without waiting for the results of the investigation. "Russia vehemently condemns this attack on Syria, where Russian military personnel are helping the legitimate Government to combat terrorism. "The actions of the United States are making the already catastrophic humanitarian situation in Syria even worse, inflicting suffering on civilians, for all intents and purposes enabling the terrorists who have been tormenting the Syrian people for seven years, and producing yet another wave of refugees fleeing the country and the region in general. The current escalation of the Syrian situation is having a destructive effect on the entire system of international relations. History will have the last word, and it has already revealed the heavy responsibility that Washington bears for the carnage in Yugoslavia, Iraq and Libya." Russia has done everything it could to persuade the United States and its allies to abandon their militaristic plans threatening a new round of violence in Syria and destabilization in the Middle East. Today, and at the Council meeting we called yesterday (see S/PV.8231), the Secretary-General expressed his concern about how events are developing. Washington, London and Paris, however, preferred to let the calls for sanity go unheard. The United States and its allies continue to demonstrate a flagrant disregard for international law, although as permanent members of the Security Council they have a special duty to uphold the provisions of the Charter. It was a disgrace to hear an article of the United States Constitution cited as justification of this aggression. We respect the right of every State to honour its own fundamental law. But it is high time that Washington learned that it is the Charter of the United Nations that governs the international code of conduct on the use of force. It will be interesting to see how the peoples of Great Britain and France react to the fact that their leaders are participating in unlawful military ventures that invoke the United States Constitution. These three countries constantly lean towards neocolonialism. They scorn the Charter and the Security Council, which they attempt, shamelessly, to use for their own unscrupulous purposes. They do no serious S/PV.8233 Threats to international peace and security 14/04/2018 4/26 18-10891 work in the Council. They refuse to consult with us, while falsely assuring everyone of the opposite. They are undermining the Council's authority. The alleged use of chemical weapons in the Syrian city of Douma has been cited as the excuse for this aggression. After an inspection by our specialists, Russia's representatives stated unequivocally that no such incident took place. Moreover, people were found to have taken part in staging the incident, which was inspired and organized by foreign intelligence services. After the matter emerged, the Syrian authorities immediately invited experts from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons to try to establish all the circumstances through a field mission to Douma. The visa formalities were dealt with quickly and security guarantees given. As the air strikes began, the specialists were already in Syria and preparing to begin their work. I would like to remind Council members and everyone else that on 10 April (see S/PV.8228), when our draft resolution (S/2018/322) on ensuring the security of the work of the OPCW's special mission was blocked, we were assured that there was no need for such a document. They said that no additional effort on the part of the Security Council was necessary to ensure that the mission could reach Douma and conduct an investigation of the chemical incident. Now, however, we can see that we were absolutely right. Yesterday, some of our colleagues — some out of naivety and others out of cynicism — told us that this situation had allegedly arisen owing to the lack of an independent investigative mechanism. The aggression today has shown, as we said, that this had nothing whatever to do with it. The OPCW-United Nations Joint Investigative Mission (JIM) was in place during last year's attack on the Al-Shayrat airbase, but that did not stop the United States from launching a missile attack. After that, the JIM spent six months tailoring its conclusions to justify the strike. We have said over and over again that they do not need any investigations. They did not need them then and they do not need them now. The organizers of the aggression did not even wait for the international organization that is authorized to establish the basic facts to do so. Apparently they had established and instantly identified the perpetrators, after disseminating rumours about them through social networks with the help of the militias they sponsor and the non-governmental organizations that are their clients. This was backed up by mythical secret intelligence. Their masks — or rather the White Helmets — have come off once again. We have become accustomed to the fact that their efforts to achieve their dubious geopolitical aims, the aggressor countries deliberately blame the so-called Assad regime for every evil. There has been a trend recently to shift the blame onto Russia, which, as they tell it, has been unable to restrain Syria's so-called dictator. All of this goes according to a tried-and- true formula, whereby a provocation results in a false accusation, which results in a false verdict, which results in punishment. Is that how these people want to conduct international affairs? This is hooliganism in international relations, and not on a petty scale, given that we are talking about the actions of key nuclear Powers. Several missiles were aimed at the research centre facilities in Barzeh and Jamraya. There have been two recent OPCW inspections there with unrestricted access to their entire premises. The specialists found no trace of activities that would contravene the Chemical Weapons Convention. Syria's scientific research institutions are used for strictly peaceful activities aimed at improving the efficiency of the national economy. Do they want Syria to have no national economy left at all? Do they want to kick this country — only a few years ago one of the most developed in the Middle East — back into the Stone Age? Do they want to finish whatever their sanctions have not yet accomplished? And yet they still contrive false breast-beating about the sufferings of ordinary Syrians. But they have no interest in ordinary Syrians, who are sick of war and glad about the restoration of the legitimate authorities in the liberated territories. Their aggressive actions merely worsen the humanitarian situation that they claim to care about so deeply. They could end the conflict in Syria in the space of 24 hours. All that is needed is for Washington, London and Paris to give the order to their tame terrorists to stop fighting the legitimate authorities and their own people. The attacks were aimed at Syrian military airfields that are used for operations against terrorist organizations, a highly original contribution to the fight against international terrorism, which, as Washington never tires of saying, is the sole reason for its military presence in Syria, something that we are extremely doubtful about. Rather, it is becoming increasingly clear that those in the West who hide 14/04/2018 Threats to international peace and security S/PV.8233 18-10891 5/26 behind humanitarian rhetoric and try to justify their military presence in Syria based on the need to defeat the jihadists are in fact acting in concert with them to dismember the country, a design confirmed by the categorical refusal of the United States and its allies to assist in the restoration of the areas of Syria that have been liberated by Government forces. Their aggression is a powerful blow and a threat to the prospects for continuing the political process under the auspices of the United Nations, which, despite the real difficulties, is moving forward, albeit at varying speed. Why do they bother endlessly pinning all their hopes on the Geneva process when they themselves are driving it straight towards yet another crisis? We urge the United States and its allies to immediately halt their acts of aggression against Syria and refrain from them going forward. We have proposed a brief draft resolution for the Council's attention on which we request that a vote be held at the end of this meeting. We appeal to the members of the Security Council. Now is not the time to evade responsibility. The world is watching. Stand up for our principles. Mrs. Haley (United States of America): I thank the Secretary-General for his briefing today. This is the fifth Security Council meeting in the past week in which we have addressed the situation in Syria. A week has gone by in which we have talked. We have talked about the victims in Douma. We have talked about the Al-Assad regime and its patrons, Russia and Iran. We have spent a week talking about the unique horror of chemical weapons. The time for talk ended last night. We are here today because three permanent members of the Security Council acted. The United Kingdom, France, and the United States acted not in revenge, not in punishment and not in a symbolic show of force. We acted to deter the future use of chemical weapons by holding the Syrian regime responsible for its crimes against humanity. We can all see that a Russian disinformation campaign is in full force this morning, but Russia's desperate attempts at deflection cannot change the facts. A large body of information indicates that the Syrian regime used chemical weapons in Douma on 7 April. There is clear information demonstrating Al-Assad's culpability. The pictures of dead children were not fake news; they were the result of the Syrian regime's barbaric inhumanity. And they were the result of the regime's and Russia's failure to live up to their international commitments to remove all chemical weapons from Syria. The United States, France and the United Kingdom acted after careful evaluation of those facts. The targets we selected were at the heart of the Syrian regime's illegal chemical-weapon programme. The strikes were carefully planned to minimize civilian casualties. The responses were justified, legitimate and proportionate. The United States and its allies did everything they could to use the tools of diplomacy to get rid of Al-Assad's arsenal of chemical weapons. We did not give diplomacy just one chance. We gave it chance after chance. Six times. That is how many times Russia vetoed Security Council resolutions to address chemical weapons in Syria. Our efforts go back even further. In 2013, the Security Council adopted resolution 2118 (2013), requiring the Al-Assad regime to destroy its stockpile of chemical weapons. Syria committed to abiding by the Chemical Weapons Convention, meaning that it could no longer have chemical weapons on its soil. President Putin said that Russia would guarantee that Syria complied. We hoped that this diplomacy would succeed in putting an end to the horror of chemical attacks in Syria, but as we have seen from the past year, that did not happen. While Russia was busy protecting the regime, Al-Assad took notice. The regime knew that it could act with impunity, and it did. In November, Russia used its veto to kill the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons-United Nations Joint Investigative Mechanism, the main tool we had to figure out who used chemical weapons in Syria. Just as Russia was using its veto (see S/PV.8107), the Al-Assad regime used sarin, leading to dozens of injuries and deaths. Russia's veto was the green light for the Al-Assad regime to use these most barbaric weapons against the Syrian people, in complete violation of international law. The United States and our allies were not going to let that stand. Chemical weapons are a threat to us all. They are a unique threat — a type of weapon so evil that the international community agreed that they must be banned. We cannot stand by and let Russia trash every international norm that we stand for, and allow the use of chemical weapons to go unanswered. Just as the Syrian regime's use of chemical weapons last weekend was not an isolated incident, our response is part of a new course charted last year to deter future use of chemical weapons. Our Syrian strategy has not changed. S/PV.8233 Threats to international peace and security 14/04/2018 6/26 18-10891 However, the Syrian regime has forced us to take action based on its repeated use of chemical weapons. Since the April 2017 chemical attack at Khan Shaykhoun, the United States has imposed hundreds of sanctions on individuals and entities involved in chemical-weapons use in Syria and North Korea. We have designated entities in Asia, the Middle East and Africa that have facilitated chemical-weapons proliferation. We have revoked the visas of Russian intelligence officers in response to the chemical attack in Salisbury. We will continue to seek out and call out anyone who uses and anyone who aids in the use of chemical weapons. With yesterday's military action, our message was crystal clear. The United States of America will not allow the Al-Assad regime to continue to use chemical weapons. Last night, we obliterated the major research facility that it used to assemble weapons of mass murder. I spoke to the President this morning, and he said that if the Syrian regime should use this poison gas again, the United States is locked and loaded. When our President draws a red line, our President enforces the red line. The United States is deeply grateful to the United Kingdom and France for their part in the coalition to defend the prohibition of chemical weapons. We worked in lock step; we were in complete agreement. Last night, our great friends and indispensable allies shouldered a burden that benefits all of us. The civilized world owes them its thanks. In the weeks and months to come, the Security Council should take time to reflect on its role in defending the international rule of law. The Security Council has failed in its duty to hold those who use chemical weapons to account. That failure is largely due to Russian obstruction. We call on Russia to take a hard look at the company it keeps, live up to its responsibilities as a permanent member of the Council, and defend the actual principles the United Nations was meant to promote. Last night, we successfully hit the heart of Syria's chemical weapons enterprise, and because of these actions we are confident that we have crippled Syria's chemical weapons programme. We are prepared to sustain this pressure if the Syrian regime is foolish enough to test our will. Ms. Pierce (United Kingdom): These are uncertain times and today we deal with exceptional circumstance. Acting with our American and French allies, in the early hours of this morning the United Kingdom conducted coordinated, targeted and precise strikes to degrade Al-Assad's chemical weapons capability and deter their future use. The British Royal Air Force launched Storm Shadow missiles at a military facility some 15 miles west of Homs, where the regime is assessed to keep chemical weapons in breach of Syria's obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention. A full assessment has not yet been completed, but we believe that the strikes to have been successful. Furthermore, none of the British, United States or French aircraft or missiles involved in this operation were successfully engaged by Syrian air defences, and there is also no indication that Russian air defence systems were employed. Our action was a limited, targeted and effective strike. There were clear boundaries that expressly sought to avoid escalation, and we did everything possible, including rigorous planning, before any action was undertaken to ensure that we mitigated and minimized the impact on civilians. Together, our action will significantly degrade the Syrian regime's ability to research, develop and deploy chemical weapons and deter their future use. The United Kingdom Prime Minister has said that we are clear about who is responsible for the atrocity of the use of chemical weapons. A significant body of information, including intelligence, indicates that the Syrian regime is responsible for the attack we saw last Saturday. Some of the evidence that leads us to this conclusion is as follows. There are open source accounts alleging that a barrel bomb was used to deliver the chemicals. Multiple open source reports claim that a regime helicopter was observed above the city of Douma on the evening of 7 April. The opposition does not operate helicopters or use barrel bombs. And reliable intelligence indicates that Syrian military officials coordinated what appears to be the use of chlorine in Douma on 7 April. No other group could have carried out this attack. Indeed, Da'esh, for example, does not even have a presence in Douma. The Syrian regime has been killing its own people for seven years. Its use of chemical weapons, which has exacerbated the human suffering, is a serious crime of international concern as a breach of the customary international law prohibition on the use of chemical weapons, and that amounts to a war crime and a crime against humanity. Any State is permitted under international law, on an exceptional basis, to 14/04/2018 Threats to international peace and security S/PV.8233 18-10891 7/26 take measures in order to alleviate overwhelming humanitarian suffering. The legal basis for the use of force for the United Kingdom is humanitarian intervention, which requires that three conditions to be met. First, there must be convincing evidence, generally accepted by the international community as a whole, of extreme humanitarian distress on a large scale, requiring immediate and urgent relief. I think that the debates in the Council and the briefings we have had from the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs and others have proved that. Secondly, it must be objectively clear that there is no practicable alternative to the use of force if lives are to be saved. I think that the vetoes have shown us that. Thirdly, the proposed use of force must be necessary and proportionate to the aim of relief of humanitarian suffering. It must be strictly limited in time and in scope to this aim. I think we have heard both in my intervention in Ambassador Haley's how that has also been met. The history of the Syrian conflict is a litany of threats to peace and violations of international law. The Security Council has met 113 times since the Syrian war started. It was therefore not for want of international diplomatic effort that we find ourselves in this position today. After a pattern of chemical-weapons use since the outbreak of the conflict, Al-Assad defied the international community in 2013 by launching a sarin gas attack on eastern Ghouta, which left more than 800 people dead. Despite the adoption of resolution 2118 (2013) and despite four years of patient engagement, Syria continues to use chemical weapons against its people and has failed to answer a long list of serious questions. The only conclusion we can reach is that Syria has not declared or destroyed all of its chemical weapons, despite its obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention. This is not assertion on our part but a matter of record, and I draw the Russian Ambassador's attention to his points about Barazan and Jimrya. The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) still has unanswered questions and discrepancies. He knows this. We all know this. The Council was briefed by the OPCW Director-General. Resolution 2118 (2013) decides in the event of non-compliance to impose measures under Chapter VII of the Charter. Yet on 28 February 2017, when the United Kingdom together with France, proposed a draft resolution (S/2017/172) taking measures under Chapter VII short of the use of force, Russia vetoed (see S/PV.7893). The very least the Security Council should have been able to do was to follow up on the findings of the report of the Joint Investigative Mechanism by extending its mandate. Yet four times Russia vetoed different proposals from different Council Members to do just that. The Syrian regime and it supporters are responsible for the gravest violations of international humanitarian law in modern history. They have used indiscriminate weapons, notably barrel bombs and cluster munitions, against civilians, and they have deliberately targeted medical facilities and schools, as well as humanitarian personnel and civilian objects. They have used sieges and starvation as methods of warfare, accompanied by attacks on opposition-held civilian areas. The regime has persistently obstructed humanitarian aid and medical evacuations. Tens of thousands of people have been illegally detained, tortured and executed by the regime. This is one of the most serious challenges to the international non-proliferation regime we have ever faced. A State party has violated the Chemical Weapons Convention, it has defied the Security Council, and it has broken international law. Repeated attempts over several years to hold them to account have been met with Russian obstruction and resistance. In the Security Council, we have repeatedly attempted to overcome this obstruction without success. We are faced with a litany of violations, no sense of guilt, no sense of regret, no sense of responsibility, a shameful record, wrapped in a mix of denial, deceit and disinformation. I would invite those like the Russian Ambassador who speak about the Charter to consider the following. It is hard to believe that it is in line with the principles and purposes of the Charter to use or condone the use of chemical weapons, and in the United Kingdom's view it cannot be illegal to use force to prevent the killing of such numbers of innocent people. I will take no lessons in international law from Russia. Despite all the foregoing, we would like to look forward. The United Kingdom, together with France and the United States, will continue to pursue a diplomatic resolution to the Syrian crisis. My French colleague will say more about our work in a few moments. We believe that it must comprise four elements. S/PV.8233 Threats to international peace and security 14/04/2018 8/26 18-10891 First, Syria's chemical weapons programme must be ended and the chemical weapons stockpiles destroyed once and for all. Secondly, there must be an immediate cessation of hostilities and compliance with all Security Council resolutions, including those that mandate humanitarian access. Thirdly, the regime must return to the Geneva talks and agree to engage on the substantial agenda put forward by the United Nations Special Envoy Staffan de Mistura. Fourthly and finally, there must be accountability for the use of chemical weapons and other war crimes in Syria. The Secretary-General rightly highlighted the political process. We propose that, as we members of the Security Council will all be together next weekend in the retreat with the Secretary-General very kindly hosted by Sweden, we use that opportunity to reflect on next steps and the way back to the political process. And with our allies, we stand ready to work with all members of the Security Council towards this end. Mr. Delattre (France) (spoke in French): A week after the chemical massacre in Douma and a day after last night's strikes, I want to say again straight away to those who pretend to wonder that France has no doubt whatsoever about the responsibility of the Al-Assad regime in this attack. This morning we made public a notice comprising information collected by our intelligence services. We dismiss those who try once again to challenge what is obvious and to disguise the facts before the world. For years now, Bashar Al-Assad, with the active support of his allies, has been devising a strategy of destruction designed to crush any opposition with contempt for the most basic principles of humanity and at the cost of the lives of hundreds of thousands of civilians in Syria. We saw it in Aleppo, in Homs, in eastern Ghouta. For years, the Syrian regime has used the most terrifying weapons of destruction — chemical weapons — to massacre and terrorize its civilian population. We had another demonstration of this in Douma, as we had seen before in Khan Shaykhun, Sarmin, Telemens and Qaminas, where its responsibility was clearly established by the Joint Investigative Mechanism of the United Nations and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). No one can say he or she did not know. For years, the Syrian regime has systematically and repeatedly violated all its international obligations. The list of such violations is long; it is overwhelming. We all know them: violations of all international chemical-weapons obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention, to which Syria has been a party since 2013, and the 1925 Geneva Protocol, which prohibits the use of such weapons against civilians; violations of the very foundations of international humanitarian law, namely, the principles of distinction, precaution and proportionality; violations of successive Security Council resolutions 2118 (2013), 2209 (2015) and 2235 (2015) and, by the same token, of its obligations under the Charter of the United Nations; finally, the use of chemical weapons against civilian populations constitutes a war crime within the meaning of the Statute of the International Criminal Court. In August 2013, the Secretary-General even described the use of chemical weapons as a crime against humanity. In view of the repeated and proven violations by the Damascus regime of all the rules on which our security is based, France has consistently called for strong action by the international community. We have made every effort to ensure that these horrors do not remain without consequences at the United Nations and the OPCW and that they are stopped. The Security Council had undertaken by successive resolutions 2118 (2013), 2209 (2015) and 2235 (2015) to impose coercive measures within the meaning of Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations in the event of new violations. It has been prevented from acting in conformity with its commitments because of the vetoes systematically used by Russia. By making such systematic use of its veto in the Security Council, Russia has betrayed the commitment it made to the Council in 2013 to ensure the destruction of the Syrian chemical arsenal. The Security Council's blockade of the mass atrocities committed in Syria is a deadly and dangerous trap from which we must escape. When it ordered the 7 April chemical attack, the Syrian regime knew exactly to what it was exposing itself. It wanted to once again test the international community's threshold of tolerance and it found it. In the face of this attack on the principles, values and rights that are the basis of United Nations action, silence is no longer a solution. We cannot tolerate the downplaying of the use of chemical weapons, which is an immediate danger to the Syrian people and to our collective security. We cannot let the deadly genie of proliferation out of its bottle. We had clearly warned Al-Assad's regime and its supporters that such a transgression would not remain without reaction. We have acted in 14/04/2018 Threats to international peace and security S/PV.8233 18-10891 9/26 accordance with our role and responsibility. We have done so in a controlled, transparent framework, taking care to avoid any escalation with the actors present on the ground. The President of the Republic and the Minister of Foreign Affairs of France have spoken on this subject. Some who for years have flouted the most elementary rules of international law now assert that our action is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations. I would remind them that the Charter was not designed to protect criminals. Our action is fully in line with the objectives and values proclaimed from the outset by the Charter of the United Nations. The Organization's mission is "to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained". This action was indeed necessary in order to address the repeated violations by the Syrian regime of its obligations — obligations stemming from the law, treaties and its own commitments. Finally, our response was conceived within an proportionate framework, with precise objectives. The main research centre of the chemical weapons programme and two major production sites were hit. Through those objectives, Syria's capacity to develop, perfect and produce chemical weapons has been put out of commission. That was the only objective, and it has been achieved. My country, which knew at first hand the devastating effects of chemical weapons during the First World War, will never again allow impunity for their use. We will never stop identifying those responsible, who must be brought to justice. That is the purpose of the International Partnership against Impunity for the Use of Chemical Weapons, which we launched last January. Allow me to stress this point: last night's strikes are a necessary response to the chemical massacres in Syria. They are a response in the service of law and our political strategy to put an end to the Syrian tragedy. To be more specific, we have four imperatives on the Syrian issue that are in the immediate interest of Syrians, but also in the interest of the entire international community, as the Secretary-General reminded us, and I want to thank him for his briefing. Let me recall those four imperatives. First, the Syrian chemical-weapons programme must be dismantled in a verifiable and irreversible way. We must spare no effort to establish an international mechanism for establishing responsibility, to prevent impunity and to prevent any repeat attempts to the Syrian regime to use chemical. Secondly, terrorism must be eradicated by permanently defeating Da'esh. That is a long-standing commitment that still requires genuine effort to ensure a definitive victory. Thirdly, there must be a ceasefire throughout the Syrian territory and humanitarian access to the civilian populations, as required by Security Council resolutions. We need full and unhindered humanitarian access in order to help people in need, in accordance with resolution 2401 (2018). In particular, it is essential and urgent that humanitarian convoys safely reach eastern Ghouta on a daily basis. Fourthly, we need a crisis-exit strategy, with a lasting political solution. We can sustainably resolve the Syrian crisis only through an inclusive political solution on the basis of the full implementation of resolution 2254 (2015). We have been calling for that for seven years. It has never been so urgent to implement it and to relaunch genuine negotiations under the auspices of the United Nations with a view to achieving a political transition in Syria. Only that road map will allow us to finally emerge from the Syrian impasse. France is ready to tackle it, as of today, with all those who are ready to put all their efforts to that end. In that spirit, at the initiative of France and in line with President Emmanuel Macron's statement tonight, we will submit as soon as possible a draft resolution on those different aspects with our British and American partners. Today I ask Russia, first and foremost, to call on the Damascus regime to enter into a plan for a negotiated solution so that the long-lasting suffering of Syrian civilians can finally be brought to an end. Mr. Ma Zhaoxu (China) (spoke in Chinese): I would like to thank the Secretary-General for his briefing. Just yesterday we were gathered in this Chamber for a meeting on the situation in Syria, during which China made clear its position on the issue of Syria, expressed profound concern about the further escalation of the tensions in Syria and made a clarion call for a political solution to the issue of Syria (see S/PV.8231). I would like to restate the following. S/PV.8233 Threats to international peace and security 14/04/2018 10/26 18-10891 China has consistently stood for the peaceful settlement of disputes and against the use of force in international relations. We advocate respect for the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of all countries. Any unilateral military actions that circumvent the Security Council contravene the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, violate the basic norms enshrined in international law and those governing international relations, and would hamper the settlement of the Syrian issue with new compounding factors. We urge all the parties concerned to refrain from any actions that may lead to a further escalation of the situation, to return to the framework of international law and to resolve the issue through dialogue and consultation. China believes a comprehensive, impartial and objective investigation of the suspected chemical-weapons attack in Syria is necessary in order to arrive at a reliable conclusion that can withstand the test of history. Until that happens, no party must prejudge the outcome. There is no alternative to a political settlement in resolving the Syrian issue. The parties concerned in the international community should continue to support the role of the United Nations as the main mediator and should work together unremittingly towards a political settlement of the Syrian issue. I would like to restate that China stands ready to continue its positive and constructive role in the efforts to achieve a political settlement of the Syrian issue in the interests of peace and stability in the Middle East and in the world at large. Mr. Umarov (Kazakhstan): Kazakhstan expresses its serious concern about the sharp escalation of the situation in Syria. We call on all parties to prevent further military escalation and take effective steps aimed at restoring confidence and establishing peace and ensuring security in the long-suffering land of Syria on the basis of the Charter of the United Nations and the relevant resolutions of the Security Council. We called yesterday and the day before yesterday, and every time when we have observed increasing tensions, in this Chamber for responsible action in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and international law. Who else, if not Council members, should show the world an example of compliance with the principles and provisions of the Charter? We are telling others to strictly follow international law and order, but sadly, yesterday we witnessed a different example. Whatever action taken under whatever good pretext cannot and will not justify the military use of force. Violence carried out against violence will never bring about peace and stability. Kazakhstan's position has always been, and continues to be, that military action is the last resort, to be used only in cases approved by the Security Council. There was no approval by the Council of the military strikes that took place yesterday. "Humanity hoped that the twenty-first century would herald a new era of global cooperation. This, however, may turn out to be a mirage. Our world is once again in danger and the risks cannot be underestimated. The threat is a deadly war on a global scale. Our planet is now on the edge of a new cold war that could have devastating consequences for all humankind." (S/2016/317, annex, p.2) That is an exact quote from the manifesto of my President, entitled "The World. The Twenty-First Century", of 31 March 2016. Just yesterday Secretary- General António Guterres confirmed, to our regret, that the Cold War is back with a vengeance (see S/PV.8231). Kazakhstan appeals to the parties to adhere to both the Charter of the United Nations and international law. We think that the time has come for serious talks encouraging the United States and the Russian Federation, given their standing as the co-Chairs of the International Syria Support Group and their respective influence on the parties, to move actively in the direction of finding middle ground and a political settlement to the conflict in Syria. The United Nations has a vital role to play in convening those negotiations and helping the parties resolve their disputes. My delegation is also extremely concerned about recent developments and the lack of unity among Security Council members with regard to the chemical attack in Syria. From its early days of independence, through a series of practical steps, Kazakhstan has consistently promoted peace initiatives in the international arena to achieve disarmament, non-proliferation and the prohibition of weapons of mass destruction, including chemical weapons, and strongly condemns their development, testing and use. I repeat: Kazakhstan strongly condemns the use of chemical weapons. 14/04/2018 Threats to international peace and security S/PV.8233 18-10891 11/26 It is important to conduct a thorough, objective and impartial investigation into all aspects of the alleged chemical attack in Douma so as to enable the international community to render a fair verdict against the perpetrators, in full compliance with international law. The Government and other parties must thoroughly execute their obligations to comply with the relevant recommendations made by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and the United Nations by accepting designated personnel, while providing for and ensuring the security of the activities undertaken by such personnel. We would like to remind the members of the Council that Kazakhstan's principled position is not only to condemn in the strongest terms the use of weapons of mass destruction by anyone, in particular against the civilian population, but also to resolve conflicts exclusively by peaceful means. President Nazarbayev stressed in his manifesto that the main tools for resolving disputes among States should be peaceful dialogue and constructive negotiations on the basis of equal responsibility for peace and security, mutual respect and non-inference in the domestic affairs of other States. Preventing the escalation of conflict and ending wars are the most challenging tasks; there are no other reasonable options. World leaders must treat such tasks as the highest priority on the global agenda. We must also respect the sovereignty of States Members of the United Nations and the purposes and principles enshrined in the Charter. We urgently need a political solution. Only a political, diplomatic approach, dialogue and confidence-building measures in the spirit of the Charter and Security Council documents on preventive diplomacy and sustaining peace can bring about proper results. We therefore call upon the international community to show political will to overcome differences and resume negotiations, in the belief that only a United Nations-led political transition in accordance with resolution 2254 (2015) can end the Syrian conflict, which, in turn, can advance only if the Council is united. There is great need to continue to support the aims of the Astana talks and further the Geneva negotiations in order to see positive results. All parties at the international, regional and Syrian levels should support an immediate ceasefire and seriously and objectively move forward without any preconditions within the framework of the International Syria Support Group, under the auspices of the United Nations Office in Geneva. We believe that the Syrian people are capable of determining their own future. However, achieving their aspirations for democracy, reconstruction and stability is impossible without genuine international support to contain the negative impact of spoilers and to help Syrians combat terrorism and build their State on a firm and stable foundation. Kazakhstan has always stood for dialogue and the resolution of international conflicts. All parties must ensure that the situation does not further deteriorate. Military means will not work; only political solutions will succeed. My President warned that there will be no winners in any modern war, as everyone will be on the losing side. He proposed to work towards the total elimination of war and a world without conflict. Finally, we again call upon all relevant parties to persist in diplomatic efforts, seek political solutions, engage in dialogue and support the United Nations as the main mediation channel. Kazakhstan is ready to work with all colleagues to preserve peace and security on the basis of mutual understanding, goodwill and determination to make the world a safer place. Mr. Radomski (Poland): I would like to thank the Secretary-General for his briefing. Poland views the recent events in the context of repeated chemical-weapons attacks against Syria's civilian population as a consequence of the impunity enjoyed by the perpetrators so far. The lack of an appropriate response encourages a greater number of attacks with the use of weapons that are both banned under international law and blatantly inhumane. In such circumstances the international community cannot remain passive. It should take all the necessary measures to prevent such attacks from being repeated in the future, in particular against a defenceless civilian population. At the same time, the competent international bodies should take decisions that will enable the perpetrators to be identified and brought to justice. We fully understand the reasons behind the action taken last night by the United States, the United Kingdom and France against Syrian chemical-weapons capabilities. We support that action, as it is intended to deter chemical-weapons attacks against the people of Syria. Let me underline that it is the primary responsibility of the Security Council to set up an S/PV.8233 Threats to international peace and security 14/04/2018 12/26 18-10891 investigative mechanism to examine the use of chemical weapons in Syria. In that context, we reiterate our disappointment with the politically motivated Russian veto on the proposal for establishing an independent, impartial investigative mechanism on the use of chemical weapons in Syria. Poland will continue its international efforts aimed at the complete elimination of chemical weapons. The use of such weapons is unacceptable and should be prosecuted vigorously in every instance and location in which they are used. Poland calls for refraining from actions that could escalate the situation. Mr. Skoog (Sweden): I thank you, Sir, for convening today's important meeting. I also thank the Secretary- General for his briefing. The conflict in Syria is now in its eighth year. That is longer than the Second World War. President Al-Assad is responsible for one of the worst and most enduring humanitarian disasters of our time. From the beginning of the crisis, we have witnessed terrible violations and violence and a flagrant lack of respect for international law, in particular by Syrian Government forces. We must also never forget the atrocities committed by Da'esh. As the Secretary-General stated yesterday, we have witnessed "systematic violations of international humanitarian law, international human rights law and international law tout court — in utter disregard for the letter and the spirit of the United Nations Charter". Indeed, there are numerous and flagrant violations of Security Council resolutions, international protocols and conventions Chemical weapons have been used repeatedly in Syria. The Joint Investigative Mechanism concluded that the Syrian authorities were responsible for four chemical-weapons attacks, and Da'esh for two. The use of such weapons is abhorrent, intolerable, a war crime and a crime against humanity. That is why, as has been noted here before, the international community banned their use in the international armed conflict more than a century ago. Subsequent developments have confirmed the prohibition of the use of chemical weapons as a norm of customary international law. We will spare no effort to end the use and proliferation of chemical weapons by State or non-State actors anywhere in the world. Those responsible for such crimes must be held accountable; there can be no further impunity. The Security Council has the primary responsibility to act in response to threats to international peace and security. It is our joint responsibility to uphold the prohibition on the use of chemical weapons in armed conflict. It is our common legal and moral duty to defend the non-proliferation regimes that we have established and confirmed. That is best done through true multilateralism and broad international consensus. In that regard, we welcome the deployment of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapon's Fact-finding Mission to Syria and we look forward to its findings. It is regrettable that the Council was unable to come together and agree on a timely, clear and unified response to the repeated use of chemical weapons in Syria. We regret that Russia, again this week, blocked the Council from setting up a truly impartial and independent attribution mechanism. That has contributed to the situation in which we find ourselves now. The use of chemical weapons is a serious violation of international law and it constitutes a threat to international peace and security. Deterrence and prevention of their use is the concern of the entire international community. We therefore share the rage and anger and are appalled by the repeated use of such weapons in Syria. It is necessary to rid Syria of chemical weapons once and for all, and hold those responsible accountable. At the same time, as the Secretary-General said in his statement yesterday, there is an obligation, particularly when dealing with matters of peace and security, to act consistently with the Charter of the United Nations, and international law in general. We are at a dangerous moment. We call for restraint and for avoiding any acts that could escalate, or further fuel, tensions. We need to avoid the situation spiralling out of control. Over the past few days, we have tried to ensure that all peaceful means to respond are exhausted. We worked tirelessly so that no stone was left unturned in efforts to find a way for the Council to shoulder its responsibility in accordance with the Charter. We have shared a proposal with Council members to achieve that objective by inviting the Secretary-General to come back to the Council with a proposal. In order to be successful, diplomacy needs to be backed by clear demands. The Secretary-General called on the Council to take action, but regrettably the Council could not unite. It was indeed a missed opportunity, but we stand ready to continue those efforts. 14/04/2018 Threats to international peace and security S/PV.8233 18-10891 13/26 In the light of all that has now happened, it is more critical than ever to avoid an escalation and revert to the track of diplomacy for a political solution in line with resolution 2254 (2015). We reiterate our total support for the United Nations-led political process, which urgently needs to be reinvigorated, as well as the efforts of Special Envoy Staffan de Mistura and the full implementation of resolution 2401 (2018) for the cessation of hostilities. Humanitarian access can wait no longer. A sustainable political solution is the only way to end the suffering of the Syrian people. Let us all then rally around that objective. Let us redouble our efforts and put an end to the long, brutal and meaningless conflict once and for all. Mrs. Gregoire Van Haaren (Netherlands): I would like to begin by thanking the Secretary-General for his briefing today. Both yesterday and today, he spoke of the litany horrors that the Syrian population has experienced in the past seven years, of which the chemical-weapons attacks are among the most gruesome. The world hardly needs reminding of the unspeakable suffering that countless Syrian men, women and children have endured. It is a suffering that comes at the hands of Al-Assad and his allies. The Syrian regime has left the world no doubt as to its willingness to unleash terror on its own population. The repeated use of chemical weapons counts as the most cynical expression of that campaign. Just a week ago, the world was yet again confronted with reports of chemical-weapons use — that time in Douma. All the while, the Russian Federation has made clear to the world its readiness to stand by Al-Assad every step of the way. It has blocked draft resolutions in the Council that could have stopped the violence. I call upon all members of the Security Council to support a collective, meaningful response to the use of chemical weapons. But even if the Council fails to act, it should be clear to the world that the use of chemical weapons is never permissible. Against the background of past horrors and the unabated risk of recurrence, the response by France, the United Kingdom and the United States is understandable. The response was measured in targeting a limited number of military facilities that were used by the Syrian regime in the context of its illegal chemical-weapons arsenal. The action taken by those three countries made clear that the use of chemical weapons is unacceptable. Last night's response was aimed at reducing the capabilities to execute future chemical attacks. But do not let the Syrian regime and the Russian Federation think for a moment that we will waver in our pursuit of full accountability for the perpetrators of past chemical attacks. We will not settle for anything less than an independent, impartial attribution mechanism, so that the culprits of those heinous attacks can be identified and held accountable. We call on the Russian Federation to stop opposing that. The use of chemical weapons is a serious violation of international law and may constitute a war crime or crime against humanity. The Kingdom of the Netherlands strongly believes that the international community must fully uphold the standard that the use of chemical weapons is never permissible. Impunity cannot, and will not, prevail. However, should the Council continue to suffer from the paralysis inflicted by a single permanent member, we must not forget that the United Nations is bigger than the Council alone. We have strong leadership at the top of the United Nations Organization, and we have a powerful General Assembly. Both have to consider all instruments to advance accountability for the use of chemical weapons. The Kingdom of the Netherlands welcomes every option to establish an independent and impartial mechanism, whether within the framework of the United Nations framework or of other relevant international organizations, as long as it results in a mechanism that can establish who is responsible, so that the perpetrators can subsequently be held to account. Any new mechanism should build upon the important work of the Joint Investigative Mechanism and the ongoing Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons Fact-finding Mission. It is therefore crucial that the Mission have complete and unhindered access to all information and sites it deems necessary to conduct its investigations with regard to the attack with chemical weapons in Douma last weekend. The international norms against the use of chemical weapons must be respected, and the Syrian people must be relieved from the violence, hardship and injustice that has haunted them for so long. To that end, we call for a political solution and an immediate cessation of violence, as agreed upon earlier by the Council, as well as full, unhindered and immediate humanitarian access. We reiterate our determination to achieve justice for the victims. The need to collectively stand up for the fate of the Syrian people is now more apparent than ever. Mr. Llorentty Solíz (Plurinational State of Bolivia) (spoke in Spanish): My delegation would like to thank the Secretary-General for his presence and participation S/PV.8233 Threats to international peace and security 14/04/2018 14/26 18-10891 in this meeting. Bolivia would also like to thank the Russian Federation for its initiative in convening this emergency meeting of the Security Council. Today is a dark day in the history of the Council. Three permanent members have made the decision, in violation of the Charter of the United Nations, to take unilateral action against the sovereignty and territorial integrity of another State Member of the Organization. Bolivia would like to clearly and categorically express its condemnation of the use of chemical weapons or the use of chemical substances as weapons, as it is unjustifiable and criminal wherever and whenever it happens, by whomever, given it constitutes a serious crime against international law and international peace and security. Those responsible for committing such terrible and criminal acts must be identified, investigated, prosecuted and punished with the utmost rigour. Bolivia continues to demand a transparent and impartial investigation to determine who the culprits are. Aside from that topic, the purpose of this meeting is linked to the fact that, as I stated, three permanent members of the Council have used force in breach of the Charter. It is impossible to combat the alleged violation of international law by violating international law. Bolivia is surprised by the fact that, given that, they have a greater a greater responsibility for maintaining international peace and security, the permanent Council members bypass the United Nations when it suits them. They advocate for multilateralism as long as it serves their purposes and then simply discard it. When multilateralism is no longer in their interest, it no longer concerns them. This is not the only case in which, sadly, unilateral action has been used. We recall, and will not tire in recalling, such use in Iraq in 2003 and in Libya in 2011. Any such action must be authorized by the Security Council under the Charter of the United Nations. All unilateral actions run counter to international law, as well as to the values and principles of the Charter. Bolivia rejects the use and the threat of the use of force. Unilateral actions not only respond to the specific interests of those who carry them out, but are also measures that are — allow me to use the word — imperialist. It so happens that the empires that we mentioned earlier consider themselves morally superior to the rest of the world. They consider themselves exceptional and indispensable, and therefore believe that they are above the law and international law, but in reality the interest of those who unilaterally use force and violate the Charter is not to advance democracy or freedom or to combat the use of chemical weapons. Their goal is to expand their power and domination. What we have witnessed over the past few hours is an attack on the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons-United Nations Joint Investigative Mechanism, which has not begun the work that was scheduled to begin today. A unilateral attack is an attack on multilateral organizations, such as the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. It is an attack on the Council and its primary responsibility of maintaining international peace and security. It is an attack on the Charter, and it is an attack on the entire international community. I wonder, with regard to the permanent members that used force just a few hours ago, how much money have they invested in arming and training the armed groups in Syria? What natural resources are they after? With what moral authority will they be able invoke the Charter in the future? Sadly, the history of violating the purposes and principles of the Charter is a long one. We mentioned Libya and Iraq, which were recent cases. The unilateral decision concerning Jerusalem also sent another absolutely clear signal of the lack of respect for international law. Who are the ones selling weapons to those who are bombing civilians in Yemen? Who are the ones who rejected the Paris Agreement on climate change? Who are the ones who stepped away from the global compact for safe, orderly and regular migration? Who are the ones who build walls? We nevertheless believe that it is also important to talk about history over the long term. Above all, we have been experiencing the consequences of the havoc wreaked by some of the colonialist Powers and of their disdain for international law in the Middle East that dates back over 100 years. We are currently reliving the same scenario in Syria, characterized by total disregard for international law. To a certain extent, we relived it, for example, when the United Kingdom refused to return the sovereignty of the Malvinas islands to Argentina or when the Chagos Archipelago issue was not resolved. I hope that the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice concerning that matter will be respected. In other words, we are talking about a whole range of policies that are detrimental to international peace and security. 14/04/2018 Threats to international peace and security S/PV.8233 18-10891 15/26 The Permanent Representative of the United States said that the United States, her country, has its finger on the trigger — "locked and loaded". Of course, we clearly heard her words with a great deal of concern and sadness. We know that the United States has aircraft carriers, satellites, smart bombs and an arsenal of nuclear weapons, and we also know that it has nothing but scorn for international law. But we have this — we have the purposes and principles of the Charter, and ultimately, as history has shown time and again, those principles will prevail. Mr. Alotaibi (Kuwait) (spoke in Arabic): At the outset, we thank Secretary-General António Guterres for his briefing at the beginning of this meeting. The State of Kuwait believes in and is committed to the Charter and principles of the United Nations, respect for the sovereignty of States, non-interference in the internal affairs of other States, and the peaceful settlement of disputes. Article 24 of the Charter of the United Nations confers upon the Security Council the responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, whereby it can act on behalf of Member States to carry out that mandate. Article 25 stipulates that the Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council. What we have witnessed in the Syrian crisis is an impasse concerning the international community's efforts and the flagrant violation of its resolutions. We have followed very closely and with great concern the dangerous developments in Syria relating to recent military operations in response to the use by the Syrian authorities of chemical weapons prohibited by international law. We underscore that those developments are the result of the impasse in the international community's efforts embodied by the Security Council to reach a political settlement to the bloody conflict in Syria, which has gone on for more than seven years. It has led to hundreds of thousands of casualties and millions of displaced Syrians and resulted in the major destruction of civilian infrastructure in several cities. The chemical weapons issue long enjoyed a unified approach in the Council, which condemned the use of all chemical weapons in Syria regardless of who uses such weapons. Moreover, the Security Council adopted resolution 2118 (2013) unanimously, imposing measures under Chapter VII of the Charter in case of the non-compliance of various parties with its provisions or the continued use in Syria of chemical weapons, which, as we have said, are internationally banned weapons. In order to ensure the implementation of that resolution, in August 2015 the Security Council adopted resolution 2235 (2015), established the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons-United Nations Joint Investigative Mechanism to determine those responsible for any crime involving the use of chemical weapons in Syria. In fact, the Mechanism identified the perpetrators of such crimes on several incidents. The unfortunate divide in the positions of the Council encouraged the parties to the crisis to continue their violations of resolutions of international legitimacy, international human rights law and international humanitarian law, as well as relevant Security Council resolutions. The most recent resolution 2401 (2018), adopted unanimously, is another example of resolutions being violated. It calls for the immediate cessation of hostilities in order to allow for humanitarian access to the besieged areas. Unfortunately, that humanitarian resolution was not implemented, as we know. The State of Kuwait regrets this escalation and calls on members to overcome their differences within the Security Council and to restore the unity of the Council so that it can shoulder its responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. We also call on members to bridge the existing gap by establishing a new, independent, impartial and professional mechanism to investigate the use of any chemical weapons in Syria and to determine who is accountable for such crimes. We reiterate our full readiness to participate in any effort aimed at achieving a compromise among the positions of members of the Council so as to ensure that those who are responsible for these crimes will be held accountable and punished, and to preserve the non-proliferation regime. It is certain that there is no military solution to the Syrian crisis. Intensive efforts must be made to spare the Syrian people further suffering. We reiterate our principled and firm position regarding the Syrian crisis, which is in line with the position of the League of Arab States calling for the preservation of the unity, sovereignty and independence of Syria; putting an end to acts of violence and the killing; avoiding bloodshed; saving Syrian lives; and reaching a peaceful settlement under the auspices of the United Nations on the basis of the 2012 Geneva First Communique, and resolution 2254 (2015), through a process of political transition S/PV.8233 Threats to international peace and security 14/04/2018 16/26 18-10891 with the involvement of all Syrian parties so that the Syrian people can achieve their legitimate aspirations. Mr. Alemu (Ethiopia): I would like to thank the Peruvian presidency for responding quickly to the request for the holding of this meeting, and we would like to express our appreciation to Russia for making the request. It would have been a serious dereliction of duty on the part of the Council if it had failed to meet in the light of what transpired yesterday. We also thank the Secretary-General for his briefing and his presence today. For those of us who are elected members of the Security Council, the responsibility is indeed extremely heavy, to the point of being unbearable. Let us not forget that we are here representing 193 countries, to which, like permanent members, we have made solemn promises that are generally encapsulated in the Charter of the United Nations. For those of us who are members of the African Union, an organization that for obvious historical reasons attaches huge importance to scrupulous adherence to the principles of the Charter, the obligation that we have to tell the truth and to stand up and be counted for peace is also enormously heavy — all the more so when the parties involved, from our own national perspective, are friends. It was only yesterday that the Secretary-General urged Member States to act responsibility in these dangerous circumstances and stressed the need to avoid the serious situation from spiralling out of control (see S/PV.8231); indeed, he repeated the same sentiment today. We have also been repeatedly expressing our concern that the dynamic in Syria could lead to devastating consequences not only nationally, but regionally and internationally. No doubt, the strike undertaken by the three countries yesterday appears not to have led to the situation spiralling out of control. We do not take that lightly, even though it might be difficult to be consoled by that fact in the light of the potential danger we still face. That is why we call for maximum restraint, the exercise of wisdom and a quick return to dialogue among the major powers that have enormous influence on the current situation in Syria. As we stressed yesterday and previously, it is absolutely vital to resume the path of diplomacy. The alternative is without a doubt catastrophic beyond our imagination. We hope that no one wants to see that happen, but it could if we do not act together with a huge sense of urgency to defuse the current tension and reduce further military escalation. By no means do we overlook the genesis of this tragedy we are facing. It has to do with the alleged use of chemical weapons in Douma. At least, that is what ratcheted up the tension, leading to what took place yesterday, which is difficult to defend as being consistent with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations. But there is also one point that makes it difficult for us to understand what took place yesterday. The Fact-finding Mission of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) is arriving, or, as just said by the Secretary-General, has already arrived in Syria to investigate the alleged use of chemical weapons, which is the cause of all this tension. In the light of that, you must excuse us, Mr. President, if we were a little perplexed. While the priority of the time is clearly to avert the further escalation of the latest development, we are not underestimating the importance of ensuring accountability for any confirmed use of chemical weapons in Syria. In that regard, the OPCW Fact-finding Mission should be allowed to conduct a thorough investigation to establish the facts related to the alleged chemical weapons attack in Douma. The sustainable way to end impunity, which we believe is extremely important, to deter and stop the use of chemicals as weapons is through united and concerted action, including through an attribution mechanism that the Council could and must set up. That has become all the more critical now, when, as we all know, truth is becoming very difficult to establish. An opportunity has been created for parties and even individuals to claim the veracity of their own facts. We know that we are all disappointed by the current deadlock, but that should not justify overlooking the obligation to adhere to the principles of the Charter. Let me conclude by referring to what the Secretary-General said yesterday. I wanted to refer to it again because it reflects the truth and is, therefore, worth repeating: "[T]he Cold War is back with a vengeance — but with a difference. The mechanisms and the safeguards to manage the risks of escalation that existed in the past no longer seem to be present." (S/PV.8231, p. 2) That is why we must appeal to the members of the Security Council, especially the Permanent Five, to help create a situation where diplomacy would have the upper hand and the primacy of politics will be our guide for coming out of what is a troubled moment in our 14/04/2018 Threats to international peace and security S/PV.8233 18-10891 17/26 recent history. The Geneva process and Special Envoy de Mistura need the unqualified support of the Council. Mr. Ndong Mba (Equatorial Guinea) (spoke in Spanish): I thank Secretary-General Guterres for his statement, which clearly illustrates the perspective of the United Nations on this issue. What took place last night was clearly not a surprise to any member of the Security Council. It remained to establish only the day and the time. In fact, as we said in our statement yesterday (see S/PV.8232), we are concerned about the rhetoric that we are hearing and where it will lead us. It has now led us to where we feared and did not want to go — military attacks against Syria. Yesterday in this Chamber, Secretary-General António Guterres spoke about the memory of the Cold War, which in fact returned with a vengeance in the early hours of the morning, reminding the peoples of the world of the conflict of interests that still exists between two blocs. The Republic of Equatorial Guinea has followed with great concern the reports on the attacks carried out by the United States, with the support of the armed forces of France and the United Kingdom. According to estimates, the coalition fired more than 100 cruise missiles and air-to-ground missiles from two United States naval ships stationed in the Red Sea, as well as from tactical warplanes that overflew the Mediterranean and B-1B bombers from another area. The coalition launched a coordinated attack on three targets, which included a scientific research centre in an area of Damascus, a facility to the west of Homs and a command post near that facility. While surgical and very selective, last night's strikes are a violation of Chapter V of the Charter of the United Nations and of the principles and norms of international law. It is important to recall that, according to Article 24 of the Charter, the Security Council has the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. Members of the Council must therefore refrain from creating situations of insecurity and instability. The Security Council should not highlight or disregard the fact that those strikes may have unpredictable and potentially tragic consequences for the Middle East by encouraging or justifying the development of nuclear programmes in order to prevent any further aggression. Experts of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) are already in Douma to carry out investigations. Until we have reliable and irrefutable proof of the alleged chemical attack in Douma last week, the Republic of Equatorial Guinea is of the view that no aggression can be justified. Our delegation also reiterates that, in accordance with Article 33 of the Charter, in the case of any dispute that is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, it is imperative to seek a solution first and foremost through negotiation, mediation or other peaceful means. History continues to show us that military interventions never resolves conflicts but, instead, cause them to proliferate and to continue, causing devastation and destruction. We must ensure that that does not happen again in the case of the Syrian Arab Republic. We again point out that the military intervention in Libya in 2011 and its consequences today should be a clear lesson to the international community. The Republic of Equatorial Guinea opposes the use of force in international relations. We accept its use only when it is in line with the principles of international law and the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations. As we have already said, in the case of Syria, it would not bring about any substantial change in the overall situation in the country. We reiterate that political agreement is the only viable way to find a lasting solution to the Syrian problem. All the parties involved must resolve their differences through dialogue, agreement and consultation. That process requires the support of the international community. The failure of diplomacy only exacerbates the suffering of the Syrian people and is the highest expression of the Security Council's failure. Equatorial Guinea continues to believe that, in order to fully clarify the 7 April events in Douma, a thorough, impartial and objective investigation must be carried out in order to reach a reliable conclusion. We urge the OPCW Fact-finding Mission in the Syrian Arab Republic to promptly carry out an investigation and to report to the Security Council on its conclusions as soon as possible. We also again reiterate the urgent need to establish, under the auspices of the Secretary- General, a professional, independent and transparent investigative body to attribute responsibility for and identify the perpetrators of the use of chemical weapons so that those responsible, whoever they are, are brought to international justice. Only in that way can that thorny issue achieve consensus and unity among the members of the Security Council. S/PV.8233 Threats to international peace and security 14/04/2018 18/26 18-10891 I conclude my statement by reiterating the unequivocal position of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea, which is that we wholeheartedly condemned the use of chemical weapons by whomever. Mr. Tanoh-Boutchoue (Côte d'Ivoire) (spoke in French): The delegation of Cote d'Ivoire would like to thank the Secretary-General for his presence and for his briefing on the latest developments in Syria following the air strikes carried out by certain members of the Security Council during the night of Friday, 13 April. Côte d'Ivoire requests all the actors involved in the Syrian conflict at the various levels to show restraint and not to further complicate the disastrous situation in which the Syrian people find themselves. Weapons and bombs have struck Syria too often in disregard for our collective action towards peace. Is it necessary to recall that, by signing the Charter of the United Nations in 1945, the founding Members sought to establish a new world order based on multilateralism and its resolve to make peace a universal common good, the maintenance of which was entrusted to the United Nations and the Security Council as its primary responsibility? The Secretary- General has just reminded us of that. In every situation in which the Charter of the United Nations has guided the action of the international community, respect for its principles has always enabled us to overcome the most inextricable challenges, thereby preventing many disasters for humanity. Based on its strong conviction in the virtues of multilateralism, my country therefore believes that resorting to force in order to maintain international peace and security must be authorized by the Security Council in order to preserve its essential legal authority and to thereby prevent any deviation or abuse. Only a Security Council that is strong and representative of our time will be able to mobilize all Member States of the United Nations in support of its primary responsibility of maintaining international peace and security. Côte d'Ivoire would therefore like to express its deep concern over the inability of the Council to relaunch the dialogue in Syria and to sideline the supporters of a military solution. Côte d'Ivoire would like to take this opportunity to reiterate its unequivocal condemnation of the use of chemical weapons, no matter who is responsible, and we call for the establishment of a multilateral mechanism to attribute responsibility and to bring those responsible for the use of chemical weapons to justice in the appropriate international tribunals. In that context, my delegation reiterates its support for the investigation to be conducted by the Fact-finding Mission of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons in order to shed light on the allegations of the use of chemical weapons in Douma in eastern Ghouta. Côte d'Ivoire once again urges the members of the Security Council to unite with a view to putting an end to their differences and to effect the establishment of this mechanism to establish responsibility, which all the members of the Council would like to see set up. Côte d'Ivoire would like to reassert its conviction and its position of principle that the response to the crisis in Syria cannot be a military response. Quite to the contrary; it must be sought in the framework of dialogue and an inclusive political process, as envisioned in the road map set out in resolution 2254 (2015). The time has come to decisively give every opportunity for dialogue a chance and to make sure that the Council is in step with history. The President (spoke in Spanish): I shall now make a statement in my capacity as the representative of Peru. Peru notes with great concern the developments in Syria. In the face of military action, as a response to information on the use of chemical weapons against the civilian population in the country, we reiterate the need to keep the situation from spiralling out of control and causing a greater threat to stability in the region and to international peace and security. Peru condemns any use of chemical weapons as an atrocity crime. For that reason, we have supported the urgent deployment to Syria of an Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons Fact-finding Mission, as well as the establishment of a dedicated, independent, objective and impartial attribution mechanism. We regret the stalemate in the Security Council and our inability to take a decision on the issue. In that regard, Peru encourages the Secretary-General to redouble his efforts in accordance with the prerogatives entrusted to him in the Charter of the United Nations with a view to helping to resolve the stalemate in the Council and to establish the attribution mechanism. Peru believes that any response to the crimes committed in Syria, as well as a solution to the conflict in Syria overall, must be consistent with the Charter, with international law and with the Council's resolutions. 14/04/2018 Threats to international peace and security S/PV.8233 18-10891 19/26 As the Secretary-General has reminded us, the Council is the organ with the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and it is up to its members to act in unity and to uphold that responsibility. Peru joins the Secretary-General's urgent appeal to all Member States to act with restraint in these dangerous circumstances and to avoid any act that could escalate the situation and worsen the suffering of the Syrian people. My delegation reaffirms its commitment to continue working in order to achieve sustainable peace in Syria, to guarantee protection for the civilian population, to ensure that there is no impunity for atrocious crimes, as well as to help defuse the situation. I now resume my functions as President of the Council. The representative of the United Kingdom has asked for the floor to make a further statement. Ms. Pierce (United Kingdom): I should like to respond to the remarks made by the Ambassador of Bolivia about the United Kingdom. We have no doubt about the sovereignty of the United Kingdom over the Falkland Islands, South Georgia, South Sandwich Islands and surrounding maritime areas. Successive British Governments have made clear that sovereignty will not be transferred against the wishes of the Falkland Islands. The Falkland Islanders voted overwhelmingly to maintain their current constitutional arrangements with the United Kingdom. Turning to the Chagos archipelago, the United Kingdom is participating in the proceedings before the International Court of Justice, even as we disagree with jurisdiction in that case. The President (spoke in Spanish): The representative of the Plurinational State of Bolivia has asked for the floor to make a further statement. Mr. Llorentty Solíz (Plurinational State of Bolivia) (spoke in Spanish): I will be very brief and limit myself to reading out what it says in the special declaration on the question of the Malvinas Islands, signed by all the Heads of State and Government of Latin America and the Caribbean. The Heads of State and Government: "Reiterate their strongest support for the legitimate rights of the Argentine Republic in the sovereignty dispute over the Malvinas, South Georgias and South Sandwich Islands and the surrounding maritime areas and the permanent interest of the countries of the region in the Governments of the Argentine Republic and of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland resuming negotiations in order to find — as soon as possible — a peaceful and definitive solution to such dispute, pursuant to the relevant resolutions of the United Nations .". That would include in particular General Assembly resolution 2065 (XX). The President (spoke in Spanish): I now give the floor to the representative of the Syrian Arab Republic. Mr. Ja'afari (Syrian Arab Republic) (spoke in Arabic): I welcome the presence of the Secretary- General at this very important moment in the history and the work of the Security Council. In his important statement yesterday, the Secretary-General warned that the Cold War had returned (see S/PV.8231). That is exactly right. We all agree with the relevance of this remark. I take this opportunity to recall those who relaunched the logic of the Cold War. Of course, we all remember, following the collapse of the former Soviet Union, that a number of philosophical books were published here in this country, including The End of History and the Last Man, by Francis Fukuyama. Another author, American thinker Samuel Huntington, wrote an essay entitled The Clash of Civilizations. Those two works marked the return of the Cold War logic. Indeed, the message of those two books was as follows: To the people of the world, you must take the American approach and surrender to the American will or we will attack you. "My way or the highway", as the American saying goes. That marked the return of the Cold War philosophy. Lies serve no purpose. They serve the person who lies once and only once. Lies deceive only once. When a lie is repeated it becomes exposed and exposes the person who is lying. My colleague the Ambassador of France announced that the aggression of his country, along with the United States and the United Kingdom, was carried out on behalf of the international community. If that is the case, I wonder which international community my colleague the French Ambassador is speaking of. Is he speaking of a real international community that S/PV.8233 Threats to international peace and security 14/04/2018 20/26 18-10891 actually exists? Has the international community that he represents authorized this tripartite aggression against my country? Did their Governments obtain a mandate from this international community to attack my country? My American, French and British colleagues claimed that they have bombarded centres for the production of chemical weapons in Syria. If the Governments of these three countries knew the actual location of these production centres that they claim to have bombarded, why did they not share that information with the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW)? Why did they not share this information with the Fact-finding Mission in Damascus before attacking my country? It is just a question I am putting to the Security Council. Furthermore, I would like to assure Council members that the OPCW investigation team arrived today at noon. Obviously, the team was delayed for a full day getting from Beirut to Damascus before the attack, for reasons that we do not know, as though the team was asked not to go to Damascus until after the bombing took place. But the team did reach Damascus today at noon and will hold a meeting in two hours, at 7 p.m., Damascus time, with the local authorities. My Government will, of course, provide every support to the team so that it may carry out its mission successfully. The facility of the Barzah Research and Development Centre, the building that was targeted by the tripartite aggression, was visited twice last year by experts from the OPCW. They inspected it, after which they gave us an official document stating that Syria had complied with its obligations under the OPCW and that no chemical activities had taken place in the inspected building. If the OPCW experts gave us an official document confirming that the Barzah Centre was not used for any type of chemical activity in contravention to our obligations with respect to the OPCW, how do Council members reconcile that with what we have heard this morning? How do they reconcile that with all the accusations and claims that the aggression targeted a chemical-weapons production centre? My American colleague said that the time for discussion is over — that it was over yesterday (see S/PV.8231). If that is so, then what are we doing today as diplomats an ambassadors at the Security Council? Our mission here is to speak, to explain what happened, to shed light on all the issues. We are not here in the Security Council simply to justify an aggression. How can we state that the discussion is over? No, the discussion is continuing in this Chamber, if the idea is to put an end to aggressions or to implement the provisions of the Charter and international law. That is why we are here. My British and French colleagues spoke of a plan of action and have invited the Secretary-General to implement it before the Council and the Syrian Government have agreed to it. Their plan of action is in fact a very strange one. But I would like to present on behalf of my Government a counter plan of action, which, I assume, should have been presented today. First, we should read the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations and define and recall the responsibilities of the three States in maintaining international peace and security, rather than threatening it. I happen to have three versions of the Charter, two in English and one in French. Perhaps these three States should read what the Charter actually states. Secondly, these three States must immediately stop supporting the armed terrorist groups that are active in my country. Thirdly, they should put an end to the lies and fabrications being used to justify their aggression against my country. Fourthly, these three States should realize that, after seven years of a terrorist war that was imposed on my country, Syria, a war carried out by these three countries and their agents in the region, their missiles, airplanes and bombs will not weaken our determination to defeat and destroy their terrorists. This will not prevent the Syrian people from deciding their own political future without foreign intervention. I will repeat this for the thousandth time — the Syrian people will not allow any foreign intervention to define our future. I promised yesterday that we will not remain inactive in the face of any aggression, and we have kept our promise. I will explain how we have kept our promise. Allow me now to address those States that remain committed to international law. I would tell them that the Syrian Arab Republic and its many friends and allies are perfectly capable of dealing with the brutal aggression that my country has had to face. But what we are asking the diplomats and ambassadors today who are committed to international legitimacy and the Charter to call on the United States, Britain and France to read the provisions of the United Nations Charter, in particular those pertaining to respect for 14/04/2018 Threats to international peace and security S/PV.8233 18-10891 21/26 the sovereignty of States and to the non-use of force in international relations. Perhaps the Governments of these three countries will realize, if only once, that their role in the Security Council is to maintain international peace and security rather than to undermine it. As I just said, I have three copies of the Charter, and I would ask the Council's secretariat to distribute them to the three delegations so that they might enlighten or awaken themselves from their ignorance and their tyranny. In flagrant violation of the principles of international law and the United Nations Charter, the United States, Britain and France, at 3:55 a.m. on Saturday, 14 April, Damascus time, attacked the Syrian Arab Republic by launching some 110 missiles against Damascus and other Syrian cities and areas. In response to this terrible aggression, the Syrian Arab Republic has exercised its legitimate right in line with Article 51 of the Charter to defend itself, and we have defended ourselves against this evil attack. Syrian air defences were able to intercept a number of rockets launched by the tripartite aggression, while some of them reached the Barzah Centre in — not outside — the capital Damascus. The Centre in that location that includes laboratories and classrooms. Fortunately, the damage was only material. Some of those modern, charming and smart rockets were intercepted, while others targeted a military site near Homs, wounding three civilians. The Governments of these three States prepared for this evil attack by issuing aggressive statements through their senior officials, saying that their only excuse for preventing the advance of the Syrian Arab Army against armed groups was these allegations of the use of chemical weapons. Indeed, in a race against time, the armed terrorist groups did receive instructions from those aggressors to fabricate this charade of the use of chemical weapons in Douma. They found false witnesses and manipulated the alleged crime scene as they did before, which served as the pretext for this scandalous aggression. This can only be explained by the fact that the original aggressors — the United States of America, Britain and France — decided to interfere directly in order to avenge the defeat of their proxies in Ghouta. In fact, those who fabricated the charade of the chemical attack in Ghouta were arrested and admitted on television that it was a fabricated attack. We have a video of that if the presidency wishes to see it. I would like to draw the attention of those who align themselves with the Charter of the United Nations and international legitimacy to the fact that this evil aggression sends another message from those three aggressors to the terrorist groups that they can continue using chemical weapons in the future and committing their terrorist crimes, not against Syrian civilians only but in other countries. There is no doubt about that. In 146 letters we have drawn the Council's attention to the plans of the terrorist groups to use chemical weapons in Syria. There are 146 letters that have been sent to the Council and the Secretariat. Today, some Council members are suddenly reinventing the wheel. The Council knows that this aggression took place just as a fact-finding team from the OPCW was supposed to arrive in Syria at the request of the Syrian Government to examine the allegations of a chemical attack in Douma. Obviously, the main message that these aggressors are sending to the Council and to the world is that they are not actually interested in the Council's mandate and that they do not want a transparent and independent investigation. They are trying to undermine the work of the investigative mission and anticipating the results. They are trying to put pressure on that mission to conceal their lies and fabrications, just as happened six years ago, in 2013, when Mr. Sellström went to Khan Al-Assal from Damascus, as I have explained in a previous statement to the Council. This morning's attack was not just an attack on Syria, as my dear friend, the representative of Bolivia said; rather, it was an attack against the Charter, the Council, international law and 193 members of this Organization. The attempt by Washington, D.C., London and Paris to ensure the failure of the United Nations working groups and fact-finding missions is systematic. While those three States boast of their support for these bodies, behind the closed doors of the Organization they pressure and blackmail them not to carry out the mandates for which they were established. We recall what took place with the investigative missions in Iraq, Libya, Yugoslavia and Africa. No investigative mission can be successful if it is subjected to political blackmailing. It cannot succeed. Of the three aggressors, I say they are liars. They are compulsive liars. They are hypocrites. They are attempting to ensure the failure of any action of the Organization that does not serve their interests. Ever since the Organization was established, they have tried to undermine the efforts of international investigative bodies. They have tried to exploit them. I need only mention Iraq, Yugoslavia, Libya, Syria, and Africa. The aggressors exhausted the Council agendas for decades S/PV.8233 Threats to international peace and security 14/04/2018 22/26 18-10891 with their attempts to divert its attention from its role in the maintenance of international peace and security. They used the Council to pursue their aggressive policy of interference and colonialism. Yesterday, in the press of the United States and of the West, the main theme was lying in the context of a campaign that was claiming success, but they know it was a lie. While these three Governments were launching their evil aggression against my country, Syria, and while my country's air defence system was countering the attacks with a great deal of bravery — one hundred missiles were destroyed and did not reach their target — the American Secretary of Defense and the Army Chief of Staff were before the American and international press in an outrageous surrealist scenario. They were not actually able to answer objective questions. Millions of television viewers must have pitied those two men because they were like dunces, repeating phrases without any meaning, and were unable to respond to the legitimate questions of a journalist about their attempts to target chemical weapons facilities and the danger that posed to civilians if the alleged chemical weapons were to spread. They did not respond. They were also unable to respond to a journalist who asked the Secretary of Defense, "You said yesterday that you had no proof that the Syrian Government was responsible for the attack in Douma. What happened in the past few hours? What made you change your mind?" His answer was that he received confirmation from intelligence services. The Syrian Arab Republic condemns in the strongest terms this tripartite attack, which once again shows undeniably that those three countries pay no heed to international legitimacy, even though they repeatedly say they do. Those countries have revealed their belief in the law of the jungle and the law of the most powerful even as they are permanent members of the Security Council, an organ entrusted with maintaining international peace and security and with stopping any aggression, in accordance with the principles and purposes of the Charter. The Syrian Arab Republic is disgusted by the scandalous position of the rulers in Sheikhdom of Qatar, who supported this Western colonial tripartite aggression by allowing planes to take off from the American Al Udeid air base in Qatar. It is not surprising that the little boys of the Sheikhdom of Qatar took that position. They have supported terrorist gangs, such as the Muslim Brotherhood and others, in a variety of ways in order to destabilize Arab countries, including Syria. The Syrian Arab Republic is asking the international community, if it exists — we have heard a new definition of the international community today — and the Security Council to firmly condemn this aggression, which will exacerbate the tensions in the region and which is a threat to international peace and security throughout the world. I call upon those who are committed to international legitimacy to imagine with me the meeting in which the United States National Security Council decided to carry out this attack. I cannot help wondering what was said. "We have no legal basis for attacking Syria. We have no proof that a toxic chemical weapons attack took place in Douma, but let us set that aside. We did not need international legitimacy or any legal argument to conduct military interventions in the past." I am just imagining the discussion that might have taken place among them yesterday. "This military action is necessary for us and for our allies in order to distract public attention in our countries from the scandals involving our own political elite and ensure that the corrupt system in some Gulf States pays the price of such aggression. Most important is how to protect the terrorism that we have sponsored in Syria for years." The President (spoke in Spanish): Members of the Council have before them document S/2018/355, which contains the text of a draft resolution submitted by the delegation of the Russian Federation. The Council is ready to proceed to the vote on the draft resolution before it. I shall put the draft resolution to the vote now. A vote was taken by show of hands. In favour: Bolivia (Plurinational State of), China, Russian Federation Against: Côte d'Ivoire, France, Kuwait, Netherlands, Poland, Sweden, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America 14/04/2018 Threats to international peace and security S/PV.8233 18-10891 23/26 Abstaining: Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Kazakhstan, Peru The President (spoke in Spanish): The draft resolution received 3 votes in favour, 8 against and 4 abstentions. The draft resolution has not been adopted, having failed to obtain the required number of votes. I now give the floor to those Council members who wish to make statements after the voting. Mr. Skoog (Sweden): We voted against the draft resolution submitted by the Russian Federation (S/2018/355) because we believe that its language was unbalanced. It was not comprehensive and failed to address all of our concerns about the current situation. At the same time, we agree with the Secretary-General that actions must be consistent with the Charter of the United Nations and with international law in general. In our national statement delivered earlier today, we explained our view on the current situation in Syria and condemned the use of chemical weapons and the many other flagrant violations of international law in Syria. We also underscore the importance of a sustainable political solution. As members of the Security Council, we reiterate that we must unite and exercise our responsibility with regard to the situation in Syria. If there is any encouragement today, it is that it appears that everyone around the table insists on a sustainable political solution as the only way to end the suffering of the Syrian population. We therefore reiterate our full support for the United Nations political process, which must now be urgently reinvigorated, including through strong support for the efforts of Special Envoy Staffan de Mistura. Mr. Alemu (Ethiopia): We would like to explain why we abstained in the voting on the draft resolution proposed by Russia (S/2018/355). We abstained not because the text does not contain a great deal of truth — indeed it does — or because it does not adhere to principles to which we should all adhere; it does. We abstained on the grounds of pragmatism. We know that even if it had received nine votes, it would have been vetoed. Therefore it would have had only symbolic value. Nonetheless, that is not unimportant. However, for us, it is critical to defuse tensions and prevent the situation from spiralling out of control. We would like to play a constructive role in that regard. Mr. Umarov (Kazakhstan): Kazakhstan abstained in the voting today on draft resolution S/2018/355 because we believe that all disputes among States should be resolved through peaceful dialogue and constructive negotiations on the basis of equal responsibility for peace and security. As I mentioned in my statement earlier today, we call for all parties to refrain from actions that could aggravate tensions and cause the situation to spiral out of control. Mr. Ndong Mba (Equatorial Guinea) (spoke in Spanish): Our abstention reflects the frustration of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea with regard to the failure to adopt a resolution to establish an attribution and accountability mechanism to identify those responsible for the use of chemical weapons. We reiterate our call for a consensus-based resolution that would establish that mechanism and prevent a repeat of the action we witnessed yesterday. In that regard, we recall that the Swedish initiative was endorsed by the 10 elected members of the Council. We could introduce the required changes into the draft resolution to enable its adoption by consensus, which would allow the mechanism to be established under the auspices of the Secretary-General. Mr. Delattre (France) (spoke in French): The draft resolution submitted by Russia (S/2018/355) has just been categorically rejected. The result of the voting sends a clear message that the members of the Council understand the circumstances, reason for and objectives of the military action taken yesterday. The Council understands why such action, which has been acknowledged as proportional and targeted, was required. No one has refuted the fact that the use of chemical weapons cannot be tolerated and must be deterred. That is the key point. It is important that we now look towards the future. As I have just said, the air strikes were necessary and served to uphold international law and our political strategy to end the tragic situation in Syria. It is for that reason that, together with our American and British partners, France will work with all members of the Security Council to submit a draft resolution on the political, chemical and humanitarian aspects of the Syrian conflict with a view to devising a lasting political solution to the conflict. Mrs. Gregoire Van Haaren (Netherlands): The Kingdom of the Netherlands voted against the draft resolution proposed by the Russian Federation S/PV.8233 Threats to international peace and security 14/04/2018 24/26 18-10891 (S/2018/355) because the text does not provide for the urgent action that the Security Council must take in response to the use of chemical weapons in Syria. It ignores the very essence of the action that must be taken by the Council. It should condemn the use of chemical weapons in Syria, protect its people and hold accountable those responsible. Today's draft resolution does none of the above. Mr. Alotaibi (Kuwait) (spoke in Arabic): Kuwait voted against draft resolution S/2018/355. At the time when the State of Kuwait reiterates its adherence to the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, which prohibits the threat or use of force as a means to settle disputes and requires them to be settled by peaceful means, yesterday's use of force was the result of efforts to disrupt the will of the international community, specifically by hindering the Security Council in its determination to take measures at its disposal to end the ongoing use of internationally prohibited chemical weapons in Syria. That is a flagrant violation of resolution 2118 (2013), which unequivocally expresses the Security Council's intention to act under Chapter VII of the Charter when one party or several parties fail to comply with its provisions or in the case of the continued use of chemical weapons in Syria. The Council must once again show its unity and bear its responsibility for maintaining international peace and security, in accordance with the Charter. It must agree on a new independent, impartial and professional mechanism for investigating any use of chemical weapons, bring those responsible for such crimes to account, and ensure that they do not enjoy impunity. We call for intensified efforts and a return to the political track, under the auspices of the United Nations, with the aim of reaching a peaceful settlement to the crisis based on the first Geneva communiqué (S/2012/522, annex) and resolution 2254 (2015). Mr. Ma Zhaoxu (China) (spoke in Chinese): China has always opposed the use of force in the context of international relations. We advocate for respecting the sovereignty, independence, unity, and the territorial integrity of all countries. Any unilateral military action bypassing the Security Council runs counter to the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, violates the principles of international law and the basic norms governing international relations and, in the present case, will further complicate the Syrian issue. Based on that principled position, China voted in favour of draft resolution S/2018/355, proposed by the Russian Federation. I would like to emphasize here that a political settlement is the only viable pathway to solving the Syrian issue. China urges the parties involved to remain calm, exercise restraint, return to the framework of international law and resolve issues through dialogue and negotiations We support the role of the United Nations as the main channel for mediation, and we will spare no effort to reach a political settlement of the situation in Syria together with the international community. Mr. Nebenzia (Russian Federation) (spoke in Russian): Today is the day when the Security Council and the world community should raise their voices in the defence of peace, security, the Charter of the United Nations and international law. Every delegation in this Chamber is a sovereign country, and no one should attempt to pressure or dictate to any of us how to interpret international law and the Charter of the United Nations, or how to consult our own consciences. We have never hesitated to vote in accordance with the dictates of international law, the Charter, our conscience and truth. Today's meeting confirms that the United States, Britain and France, all permanent members of the Security Council, continue to plunge world politics and diplomacy into a realm of myths, myths that have been created in Washington, London and Paris. That is dangerous work, representing a kind of diplomacy that traffics in myths, hypocrisy, deceit and counterfeit ideas. Soon we will arrive at the diplomacy of the absurd. These three countries create these myths and try to force everyone to believe in them. We counter their myths with facts and a true picture of what is going on. But they do not want to see or hear. They simply ignore what they are told. They have come up with a legend about Russia as a constant wielder of the Security Council veto whom they purposely provoke into using the veto so as to then present themselves in a favourable light, especially right now. They are distorting international law and replacing its concepts with counterfeits. They are unabashedly hypocritical. They demand an investigation, and before the investigation has even started they name and punish the guilty parties. Why did they not wait for the result of the investigation that they themselves all called for? The Security Council is paralysed because of these countries' persistent deceptions both of us 14/04/2018 Threats to international peace and security S/PV.8233 18-10891 25/26 and the international community. They are not only putting themselves above international law, they are trying to rewrite it. They violate international law and try to convince everyone that their actions are legal. The representative of the United Kingdom gave three reasons justifying the missile strikes based on the concept of humanitarian intervention. They are trying to substitute them for the Charter. That is why we and other countries did not support it then and do not support it now, because we do not want it to become the justification for their crimes. We demand once again that that they halt this aggression immediately and refrain from the illegal use of force in the future. Today we once again showed the whole world how we play our underhanded games. In Soviet times there was a pamphlet entitled Where Does the Threat to Peace Come From? that described Washington and the NATO countries' military preparations. Nothing has changed. The threat to peace comes from exactly the same place. Look at what they say and listen to the war drums that they are beating in Washington today in the guise of hypocritical concern for democracy, human rights and people in general. The five-minute rule in the latest presidential note's rules of procedure (S/2017/507) will not allow me to list them, because the list is too long. I could cite other examples, as for example how the President of France showed interest in a conversation with President Putin in an investigation in Douma and was ready to send French experts there when that idea suddenly disappeared. Because a different algorithm was put forward. That is obvious. Today is a sad day. It is a sad day for the world, the United Nations and its Charter, which has been blatantly violated, and the Security Council, which has shirked its responsibilities. I should like to believe that will not see another day as bad as today. The President (spoke in Spanish): I shall now make another statement in my national capacity. Peru abstained in the voting because we believe that the draft resolution did not adequately reflect the need to guarantee due accountability for the use of chemical weapons throughout Syrian terrority and because its language is imbalanced and would not help to restore the Council's unity, which is critical to addressing the events in Syria in a comprehensive manner. I now resume my functions as President of the Security Council. The representative of the United Kingdom has asked to make another statement. Ms. Pierce (United Kingdom): I think it is obvious why we voted against the draft resolution. We support completely what the French representative laid out about next steps and we will work tirelessly to that objective, along with partners on the Council. The Russian Ambassador referred to myths. These are not our myths. The way forward in the Council has been blocked. The second of our own criteria for taking this action on an exceptional basis must be objectively clear. There is no practicable alternative to the use of force if lives are to be saved. In the 113 meetings of the Council on Syria, I think that has been demonstrated absolutely crystally clear. The United Kingdom believes that it cannot be illegal to prevent the use of force to save lives in such numbers as we have seen in Syria. The reason we took this action — our legal basis — was that of humanitarian intervention. We believe that that is wholly within the principles and purposes of the United Nations. The President (spoke in Spanish): The representative of the Syrian Arab Republic has ask for the floor to make a new statement. I now give him the floor. Mr. Ja'afari (Syrian Arab Republic) (spoke in Arabic): I apologize for requesting the floor once again. The scene that we have just witnessed is quite sad. There are those in the Council who prefer to overlook an enormous elephant that we have spoken of before. The elephant is the direct American military occupation of one-third of my country's territory — a direct American military occupation of one-third of the Syrian Arab Republic territory. However, there are those who speak of minor details which they believe to be pivotal. No, the political scene is far more dangerous than that. We are a State whose sovereignty has been facing a direct military violation by a permanent member of the Council. That is the true scene, and not the allegations and the film prepared by the terrorist organization known as the White Helmets established by British intelligence. We need to focus on the main scene here. Some would claim that they are fighting Da'esh in Syria and Iraq. However they have given air cover to Da'esh. Whenever the Syrian Arab Army makes advances against Da'esh, United States, British and French war planes bombard our military sites. Why? To prevent our decisive victory against that entity. However, they failed S/PV.8233 Threats to international peace and security 14/04/2018 26/26 18-10891 and we were able to achieve victory against Da'esh with our brothers in Iraq in three years and not in thirty, as former President Obama predicted. We understand that the capitals of the three countries that launched the aggression against my country are frustrated. Some colleagues who voted against the Russian draft resolution (S/2018/355) claim to support a political settlement. We tell them now, after their shameful vote against the draft resolution, that those who voted against it are no longer partners of the Syrian Government in any political process. The British Ambassador explained things about the Malvinas Islands. That testimony reveals the facts about the imperialistic policies of Britain. I am actually the Rapporteur of the Special Committee on Decolonization (C-24) and I work under the agenda of the United Nations and the Secretary-General. My task and that of my colleagues in the C-24 is to end colonialism throught the world. The Malvinas are on the list of territories that do not enjoy self-governance. We are working in accordance with the United Nations agenda to end the British occupation of the Malvinas. As for my colleague the Ambassador of Kuwait, I remind him — although he and his Government are well aware of it — that when my country participated in the liberation of Kuwait, we did not justify our principled position to the people of Kuwait. Our position was a principled one. We did not need draft resolutions, meetings or any tripartite aggression. We did not look into the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations or undermine our national obligations to our brothers in Kuwait, nor did we join any bloc that was hostile to Kuwait. We fulfilled our national duty towards our brothers in Kuwait. The Ambassador of Kuwait will also recall that my country could have played a different role at the time and could have negatively impacted the peace, safety and security of Kuwait, but we chose not to do so. We acted pursuant to a national principled position that was not subject to negotiation or discussion. The meeting rose at 1.50 p.m.
This guide accompanies the following article: Daniel H. Nickolai, Steve G. Hoffman, and Mary Nell Trautner. 2012. 'Can a Knowledge Sanctuary also be an Economic Engine? The Marketing of Higher Education as Institutional Boundary Work', Sociology Compass 6(3):205–18.Authors' introductionThe marketing of higher education refers to a structural trend towards the adoption of market‐oriented practices by colleges and universities. These organizational practices blur the boundary between knowledge‐driven and profit‐driven institutions, and create tensions and contradictions among the three missions of the 21st‐century university: knowledge production, student learning, and satisfying the social charter. In this article, we highlight the historical contexts that nurtured the marketing of higher education in the US and Europe and explore the dilemmas that arise when market logics and business‐oriented practices contradict traditional academic values. We demonstrate that managing these dilemmas is a contested process of policing borders as institutional actors struggle to delineate the proper role of the university in a shifting organizational climate.Authors recommendArum, Richard and Josipa Roksa. 2011. Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.A book that asks a fundamental question in higher education: "How much are students actually learning?" The results do not reflect well on the institution. Arum and Roksa conduct longitudinal tests of critical thinking and analytic reasoning skills on a cohort of students at a variety of universities and colleges. They find that a majority of respondents demonstrate little to no improvement in learning outcomes. Even students who improve show modest gains. The authors' analysis of student surveys suggests that a major culprit is a combination of low rigor in the curriculum, a lack of effort among students, and the overly modest expectations of instructors.Barnett, Ronald. 2010. 'The Marketised University: Defending the Indefensible.' Pp. 39–51 in The Marketisation of Higher Education and the Student as Consumer, edited by M. Molesworth, R. Scullion and E. Nixon. New York: Routledge.Barnett suggests that debates about the effects of marketization on higher education often reflect pre‐existing ideologies about the nature of markets in general. He presents numerous arguments in favor of the conception of students as consumers. For example, the increased power students receive in choosing where and from who to take classes may encourage accountability and actually improve the learning experience as students take a more active role in charting their own course through their education. Barnett also reminds readers that different institutions create different contexts and the extent to which market models of higher education are applicable are largely dependent on these different contexts.Berman, Elizabeth Popp. 2012. Creating the Market University: How Academic Science Became an Economic Engine. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.An in‐depth historical sociology of the entrepreneurial university, this book explores when and why academic science become increasingly tethered to commercial interests over the last four decades. Berman focuses primarily on patenting trends and the political history of patenting law, as well as the development of biotech entrepreneurship and the emergence of university‐industry incubators. She argues that the trend toward an entrepreneurial model were largely driven by the ideals of government officials about the importance of translating scientific and technological innovation into economic growth, along the way creating the organizational environment necessary to enable market‐oriented research to flourish.Kleinman, Daniel Lee. 2003. Impure Cultures: University Biology and the World of Commerce. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Kleinman provides an in‐depth look into the daily work culture of a plant pathology lab at the University of Wisconsin. This participant observation study includes ambitious critiques of the dominant agency‐oriented approaches within science and technology studies by focusing on issues of structural constraint and institutional power. This study is especially good at demonstrating how university biologists are deeply, athough indirectly, constrained by commercial interests. The influence is not easily found in conflicts of interest or day‐by‐day decision making of scientists, who by and large conduct themselves ethically and in the fashion predicted by Mertonian norms of science. Instead, the culture of commerce impacts an array of daily lab practices, including the baseline epistemological assumptions around what is a "significant" finding. In the world of plant pathology, a successful trial is determined in relation to the metrics established by the field's resource dependency on the agro‐chemical industry.Leslie, Larry L. and Gary P. Johnson. 1974. 'The Market Model and Higher Education.'The Journal of Higher Education 45:1–20.This landmark article is among the first to interrogate the use of a market model as it applies to higher education. The authors trace several key legislative measures that altered federal funding practices and gave students discretion in choosing which schools would receive the most funding. While the authors draw similarities between market practices and the process of funding higher education through students, they also question the extent to which a market model of higher education is applicable. Drawing a contrast between higher education funding practices and a perfectly competitive market model, they provide an important critique of a funding system still in use today.McMillan, Jill J. and George Cheney. 1996. 'The Student as Consumer: The Implications and Limitations of a Metaphor.'Communication Education 45:1–15.This article warns of the dangers involved in recasting students as consumers. McMillan and Cheney synthesize arguments about the traditional goals of education and how treating students as consumers can threaten traditional classroom relations and alienate students from the learning process. Implicit in their discussion is an argument for more traditional classroom approaches to fostering democratic citizenship skills through critical analysis and communal sharing of ideas. They explicitly reject the notion of education as a product (rather than a process) and the demand for professors to deliver the product in the most entertaining and efficient manner.Owen‐Smith, Jason and Walter W. Powell. 2002. 'Standing on Shifting Terrain: Faculty Responses to the Transformation of Knowledge and Its Uses in the Life Sciences.'Science Studies 15:3–28.An interview‐based study of 80 scientists from two university campuses, this paper provides a typology of faculty identities and research strategies at the nexus of academic and commercial research within the life sciences. The typology includes "old" and "new school" orientations to commercial research as well as hybrid categories somewhere between these two extremes, such as "engaged traditionalists" and "reluctant entrepreneurs." Eschewing simplistic analyses that either condemn or glorify the commercial engagements of academics, Owen‐Smith and Powell point out that these various positions have created both novel fault lines and innovative research within the life sciences.Radder, Hans. 2010. The Commodification of Academic Research: Science and the Modern University. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.This book is an edited collection of essays on the history, extent, and contemporary impacts of commodification on academic research in the US and Europe. Most of the essays converge at the intersection of science studies and research policy, but are written by an impressively eclectic group of authors pulled from philosophy, sociology, government studies, epidemiology, genomics, and bioethics.Vallas, Steven Peter and Daniel Lee Kleinman. 2008. 'Contradiction, Convergence and the Knowledge Economy: The Confluence of Academic and Commercial Biotechnology.'Socio‐Economic Review 6:283–311.This is an interview‐based study of biotech science that develops a theory of the "asymmetrical convergence" that characterizes the two sides of the university‐industry relation. Vallas and Kleinman describe the work situations of university and commercial scientists to show that there has been a convergence of norms and practices across academic and corporate institutional domains. The authors show that the open discovery ideals of academic science have been increasingly integrated the entrepreneurial values and practices imported from the private sector. Simultaneously, commercial laboratories brought scientific practices and concepts into their workplaces. However, the convergence is asymmetrical, in the sense that both fields of practice are dominated by the profit motive and bottom‐line economic development rather than the communal norms of public science.Online materialsResearch Commercialization and SBIR Centerhttp://center.ncet2.org/This web‐based organization provides an online venue for faculty and students to take virtual workshops and webinars on how to engage in research capitalization and entrepreneurial training. The site includes a variety of resources for faculty and graduate students looking to transition into industry jobs. This site also provides researchers interested in the marketization of higher education a glimpse into a cottage industry that has emerged to provide training services for academics looking to capitalize their research and pedagogy.The Institute for Triple Helix Innovationhttp://www.triplehelixinstitute.org/thi/ithi_drupal/An organization focused on facilitating cross‐sector (academia, industry, and government) collaborations in the production and dissemination of scientific research aimed at economic growth. Another example of a cottage industry established to promote research capitalization and professional networks aimed at knowledge transfer and research capitalization.Documentary, "College Inc." (2010)http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/collegeinc/This 55‐minute video from PBS' Frontline series examines the emergence of, demand for, and debates surrounding the consequences of for‐profit universities such as the University of Phoenix. Available streaming online until October 19, 2012, thereafter only as DVD purchase. Supplemental materials on the College, Inc. webpage include: (1) a teaching guide with lesson plans, discussion questions, student handouts, and lesson extensions; (2) responses from the colleges and universities highlighted in the video; (3) articles, reports, and documents related to for‐profit education; (4) transcripts of interviews conducted with numerous investors, reporters, lobbyists, and college presidents; and (5) a transcript and audiocast of the full program.Documentary, "Declining by Degrees: Higher Education at Risk" (2005)http://www.decliningbydegrees.org/This 120‐minute video from PBS examines the impact of market forces in higher education, specifically discussing factors such as declining government support for public education, changes to student loan programs, the pressure to attract students, college rankings, and college sports. The documentary shows viewpoints from administrators, students, and faculty. A companion book is available for purchase through the program's webpage.Sample syllabusThe "Marketization of Higher Education" article can be successfully incorporated in several types of undergraduate and graduate courses, including Introductory Sociology, Sociology of Education, Organizations and Institutional Change, and Science and Technology.For introductory or education‐focused courses, the article provides a succinct history of the relationship between higher education and the broader society while demonstrating how social institutions respond to social and cultural expectations/needs in different historical and national contexts. The article includes a short summary of the historical and contextual differences in the European and American models of higher education.For more advanced students of organizations, the article provides a case study demonstrating how macro level institutional changes influence organizational climate and social actors' perceptions of their own work. Further, advanced or graduate seminars in education may choose to highlight the various debates about the role of (higher) education in an increasingly knowledge‐based economy.Focus questions Discuss examples of how market logics may have influenced your coursework, choice of classes, or commitment to a class. What do you think about the informal economy and buying and selling course notes and study materials? Discuss examples in which you put more or less effort into a class based on your perception of the course's bottom‐line benefit to your post‐graduation career and/or income. How might the pressures faced by professors to bring in research funds from industry or venture capital influence their work and commitment to the classroom? In your experience, does this seem to be more common within those subject areas where knowledge capitalization is fairly common, such as biotech or computer science? Or, can we see the influence of knowledge capitalization in humanities or social sciences too? To the extent that students have adopted an understanding of higher education as a commercial exchange, in which they are customers who pay for grades, etc., what might be some ways in which we could change that perception? What changes would faculty need to make in order to change student attitudes? Administrators? Students themselves? Seminar/Project ideasExploring Institutional BoundariesInterview a few other undergraduate students plus at least one faculty. Ask students questions such as why they decided to come to college, how they decided which college to attend, what they like and do not like about their college education, and what they hope to get out of their college experience. Ask faculty to provide their perspective on why they became a professor, what they like about their job and what they dislike, and what they see as the purpose of college and what students should get out of the college experience. In what ways do faculty and student perspectives converge, and how do they differ? Do any of the differences suggest blurring boundaries between missions of the university (knowledge production, student learning, and satisfying the social charter)?Marketization in Your College/UniversityDo a content analysis of official university admissions brochures, websites, and videos. What messages does the college want you to get from these materials? In what ways might the marketization of higher education be evident in such materials? If the university makes historical materials available, ask students to compare such materials over time to discern an increase in marketization, and how such processes are manifested. Do admissions materials for undergraduates and graduate students emphasize the same things? What differences do you note? Why do you think such differences do or do not exist?
ABSTRACTObjective of this study is to determine the impact of intellectual capital disclosure on cost of equity capital in financial reporting of banking sector companies registered on the Indonesia Stock Exchange. This study used intellectual capital disclosure as independent variable, cost of equity capital as dependent variable, and firm size as moderation variable. This method used is quantitative approach. Data of research is secondary data, using annual report of companies listed in the Indonesia Stock Exchange gained through www.idx.co.id. Samples research were selected by using purposive sampling method. The analysis technique used in this research is multiple linear regression analysis. The result of this study indicate that intellectual capital disclosure has negative significant effect on cost of equity capital, human capital disclosure has negative significant effect on cost of equity capital, structural capital disclosure has no significant effect on cost of equity capital, relational capital has positive significant effect on cost of equity capital, and firm size as a moderating variable has no individual effect but it can be as predictor variable on the relationship of intellectual capital disclosure to the cost of equity capital.Keywords: intellectual capital disclosure, cost of equity capital, size firm REFERENCES(n.d.). Retrieved from Bursa Efek Indonesia (IDX): www.idx.co.idAbeysekera, I. (2011). The relation of intellectual capital disclosure strategies and market value in two political settings. Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 12 No. 2 pp. 319-338.Aisyah, C. N., & Sudarno, S. (2014). Penagruh Struktur Kepemilikan dan R&D Terhadap Luas Pengungkapan Modal Intelektual. Dipenogoro Journal of Accounting, Vol 3 No 1, pp. 1-9.Arjuwati, B. (2016). Pengaruh Kinerja Intellectual Capital Terhadap Intellectual Capital DIsclosure pada Perusahaan yang Listing di Bursa Efek Indonesia. Padang: Kementrian Riset, Teknologi dan Pendidikan Tinggi Politeknik Negeri Padang.Bontis, N., & Kristandi, G. (2007). The Impact of Voluntary Disclosure on Cost of Equity Capital Estimates in a Temporal Settings. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 8 (4) pp. 577-594.Bontis, N., Keow, W., & Richardson, S. (2000). Intellectual Capital and Business Performance in Malaysian Industries. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 1 (1), pp. 85-100.Boujelbene, A. M., & Affes, H. (2013). The Impact of Intellectual Capital Disclosure on Cost of Equity Capital: A Case of French Firms. Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Science.Cahyati, A. (2012). Intellectual Capital: Pengukuran, Pengelolaan dan Pelaporan. Jurnal Riset Akuntansi & Komputerisasi Akuntansi, 3 (1).Chen, M., Cheng, S., & Hwang, Y. (2005). An Empirical Investigation of the Relationship Between Intellectual Capital and Firm's Market Value and Financial Performance. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 6 (2), 159-176.Chu, S. K., Chan, K. H., & Wu, W. W. (2011). Charting Intellectual Capital Performance of the Gateway to China. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 12 (2), pp. 249-276.Edvinsson, L., & Malone, M. (1997). Intellectual Capital: Realizaing your Company's True Value by Finding Its Hidden Brainpower. New York: Harper Business.Efferin, S., Darmadji, S. H., & Tan, Y. (2018). Metode Penelitian Akuntansi Mengungkap Fenomena dengan Pendekatan Kuantitatif dan Kualitatif. Graha Ilmu.Espinosa, M., & Trombetta, M. (2007). Disclose interactions and the cost of equity capital: Evidence from the Spanis Continuous Market. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, 34(9-10), 1371-1392.Evans, T. G. (2003). Accounting Theory: Contemporary Accounting Issues. South-Western,Thomson,Australia.Francis, J. R., Khurana, L. K., & Pereira, R. (2005). Disclosure Incentives and Effects on Cost of Capital Around The World. Accounting Review, 80 (4): 1125-1162.Francis, J., LaFond, R., Olsson, P., & Schipper, K. (2005). The market pricing of accruals quality. Journal of Accounting & Economics, 295-327.Freedman, M., & Jaggi, B. (2005). Global Warming, Commitment to The Kyoto Protocol and Accounting Disclosures by The Largest Global Public Firms from Polluting Industries. The International Journal of Accounting, 40, pp. 215-232.Freeman, R., & Reed. (1983). Stockholders and Stakeholder: A New Perspective on Corporate Governance. Californian Management Review, 25 (2), pp. 88-106.Ghozali, I. (2013). Aplikasi Analisis Multivariate dengan Program SPSS Cetakan VII. Semarang: Badan Penerbit Universitas Diponegoro.Gorethai, J. (2019). The Impact of Intellectual Capital Performance on Intellectual Capital DIsclosure in Financial Report (Case Study on Banking Sector Companies Registered on The Indonesia Stock Exchange). Pontianak: University of Tanjungpura.Guthrie, J., & Petty, R. (2000). Intellectual Capital: Australian annual reporting practices. Journal of Intellectual Capital Vol 1, No. 3, pp. 343-352.Guthrie, J., Cuganesan, S., & Wad, L. (2006). Legitimacy Theory: A Story of Reporting Social and Environmental Matters Within the Australian Food and Beverage Industry. Sydney: The University of Sydney.Guthrie, J., Pretty, R., Yongvanic, K., & RIcceri, F. (2004). Using Content Analysis as a Research Method to Inquire to Intellectual Capital Reporting. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 5 (2), pp. 282-293.Haniffa, R., & Cooke, T. E. (2005). The Impact of Culture and Governance on Corporate Social Reporting. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 24, pp. 391-430.Hernita, S. (2012). Pengaruh Pengungkapan Modal Intelektual Terhadap Biaya Ekuitas dan Biaya Utang (Studi Empiris Pada Perusahaan dengan Teknologi Intensif di Indonesia). Depok: Universitas Indonesia.Husin, N., Ahmad, N., & Sapingi, R. (2011). Intellectual Capital: A Focus on Human Capital Reporting Practice of Top Malaysian Listed Companies. The South East Asian Journal of Management, 5 (1), pp. 51-71.Ikatan Akuntansi Indonesia. (2018). Standar Akuntansi Keuangan Per 1 Januari 2018. Jakarta: IAI.Iranmahd, M., Moeinaddin, M., Shahmoradi, N., & Heyrani, F. (2014). The Effect of Intellectual Capital on Cost of Finance and Firm Value. International Journal of Academic Research in Accounting, Finance and Management Sciences Vol 4 No 2, pp. 1-8.Istianingsih. (2011). Faktor-faktor Penentu Pengungkapan Informasi dan Kinerja Modal Intelektual serta Dampaknya terhadap Kemampuan Imbal Hasil Saham dalam Memprediksi Laba Masa Depan Perusahaan. Disertasi Program Pasca Sarjana Ilmu Akuntansi Fakultas Ekonomi Universitas Indonesia.Kementrian Keuangan Republik Indonesia Badan Pengawas Pasar Modal dan Lembaga Keuangan. (n.d.). Keputusan Ketua Badan Pengawas Pasar Modal dan Lembaga Keuangan Nomor: KEP-347/BL/2012.Khoirunnisa, I., & Cahyati, A. D. (2017). Pengaruh Intellectual Capital Disclosure Terhadap Cost of Equity dan Cost of Debt. Jurnal Riset Akuntansi Keuangan Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 196-220.Larasati, P., & Noita, N. (2015). Pengaruh Pengungkapan Modal Intelektual Terhadap Cost of Equity Perusahaan Sektor Industri Barang Konsumsi yang Terdaftar di Bursa Efek Indonesia Periode 2012-2014. Jurnal Ekonomi, Manajemen dan Perbankan Vol 1 No 3, pp. 78-84.Li, J., Pike, R., & Haniffa, R. (2008). Intellectual Capital Disclosure and Corporate Governance Structure in UK firms. Accounting and Business Research, 38 (2) pp. 137-159.Mangena, M., Pike, R., & and Li, J. (2010). Intellectual Capital Disclosure Practices and Effects in the Cost of Equity Capital: UK Evidence. The institute of Chatered Accountants of Scotland.Mangena, M., Pike, R., & Li, J. (2010). Intellectual Capital DIsclosure Practices and Effects in the Cost of Equity Capital: UK Evidence. The Institue of Chartered Accountants of Scotland.Moeheriono. (2012). Pengukuran Kinerja Berbasis Kompetensi. Jakarta: Raja Grafindo Persada.Mokhova, N., Zinecker, M., & Meluzín, T. (2018). Internal Factors Influencing the Cost of Equity Capital. Enterpreneurship and Sustainability Issues, Enterpreneurship and Sustainability Center,, 827-845.Omran, M. A., & El-Galfy, A. M. (2014). Theoritical perspectives on corporate disclosure: a critical evaluation and literature survey. Asian Revew of Accounting, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 257-286.Orens, R., Aerts, W., & Lybaert, N. (2009). Intellectual capital disclosure, cost of finance and firm value. Management Decision, Vol 43 No 10 pp. 1536-1564.Priyatno, D. (2018). SPSS Panduan Olah Data bagi Mahasiswa/Umum. Yogyakarta: ANDI.Purnomosidhi, B. (2006). Praktik Pengungkapan Modal Intelektual pada Perusahaan Publik di Bursa Efek Jakarta (BEJ). Jurnal Riset Akuntansi Indonesia, 9 (1), pp. 1-20.Puspitasari, A. (2018). The Practice of Disclosing Human Capital in Bank Jawa Barat and Banten: From the Perspective of Political Economy of Accounting. Pontianak: University of Tanjungpura.Septiani, G., & Taqwa, S. (2019). Pengaruh Intellectual Capital Disclosure dan Leverage terhadap Cost of Equity Capital: Studi Empiris Pada Perusahaan Properti dan Real Estate Yang Terdaftar Di Bursa Efek Indonesia Tahun 2014-2017. Jurnal Eksplorasi Akuntansi Vol. 1, No. 3, Seri D, Agustus 2019, 1337-1353.Setiawati, E., & Agustina, L. (2016). Intellectual Capital Disclosure and Its Implications on Cost of Equity Capital with Information Asymmetry as An Intervening Variable (An Empirical Study on Manufacturing Companies Listed in IDX Year 2012-2014). Accounting Analysis Journal, 5 (4) pp. 271-281.Sugiyono. (2017). Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif, Kualitatif, dan R&D. Bandung: Alfabeta.Suwardjono. (2014). Teori Akuntansi: Perekayasaan Pelaporan Keuangan (3 ed.). Yogyakarta: BPFE.Ulum, I. (2009). Intellectual Capital: Konsep dan Kajian Empiris. Yogyakarta: PT. Graha Ilmu.Ulum, I. (2012). Investigasi Hubungan antara Kinerja Modal Intelektual dan Praktik Pengungkapannya dalam Laporan Tahunan Perusahaan. Jurnal Ekonomi dan Bisnis, 17(1), pp. 36-45.Ulum, I. (2015). Peran Pengungkapan Modal Intelektual dan Profitabilitas dalam Hubunangan antara Kinerja Modal Intelektual dengan Kapitalisasi Pasar. Semarang: Universitas Diponegoro.Ulum, I. (2017). Intellectual Capital: Model Pengukuran, Framework Pengungkapan & Kinerja Organisasi. Malang: Unversitas Muhammadiyah.Ulum, I., Ghozali, I., & Purwanto, A. (2014). Konstruksi Model Pengukuran Kinerja dan Kerangka Kerja Pengungkapan Modal Intelektual. JAMAL (Jurnal Akuntansi Multiparadigma, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 380-392.Ulum, I., Tenrisumpala, A., & Wahyuni, E. D. (2016). Intellectual Capital Disclosure: Studi Komparasi antara Universitas di Indonesia dan Malaysia. Akuntabilitas: Jurnal Ilmu Akuntansi Volume 9 (1), pp. 13-26.Undang Undang No. 20 Tahun 2008. (n.d.).Whiting, R. H., & Miller, J. C. (2008). Voluntary disclosure of intellectual capital in New Zealand annual reports the 'hidden value'. Journal of Human Resource Costing Accounting, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 26-50.Widarjo, A. (2018). Analisis Regresi dengan SPSS. Yogyakarta: UPP STIM YKPN.Wulandari, & Prastiwi, A. (2014). PENGARUH PENGUNGKAPAN INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL TERHADAP COST OF EQUITY CAPITAL Studi Empiris pada Perusahaan yang Terdaftar di Indeks LQ45 Bursa Efek Indonesia Tahun 2012. Dipenogoro Journal of Accounting Volume 3, Nomor 4, Halaman 1.Yulistina, M. (2011). Pengaruh Pengungkapan Intellectual Capital Terhadap Cost of Equity Capital. Semarang: Fakultas Ekonomi Universitas Diponegoror.Zhang, M. (2016). Pengertian Budaya Perusahaan Menurut Para Ahli. Retrieved from Retrieved from Sarjanaku.com: http://www.sarjanaku.com
Energy security is among the key issues in political agendas worldwide. Developed and developing economies, in fact, are increasingly concerned to secure constant flows of energy for fuelling their economic and social development. Despite there is no universally accepted definition of energy security, there is widespread consensus on that it relies, inter alia, on appropriate international instruments for promoting and, more important, protecting cross-border energy investments. Energy investments, effectively, are capital-intensive, long-lasting and highly-risky. This is particularly so as far as foreign energy investments are concerned. Investors investing in foreign Countries, in fact, are particularly exposed to non-commercial risks such as nationalizations, expropriations or discriminatory treatments. In order to carry out their investments and, more important, to protect them, therefore, said investors require proper guarantees on that their activities will not be undermined by unjustified or unreasonable measures which may be put into place by the host States. Of paramount importance, to this respect, is the prevision of impartial mechanisms for the settlement of disputes that may arise between foreign investors and host States concerning the activities carried out by the former in the territory of the latter. Indeed, a response to this need is represented by international arbitration, by which possible conflicts are settled by arbitral tribunals external to the host States' judicial systems. In the course of time, international law has provided for numerous instruments by which promoting and protecting foreign energy investments. The Energy Charter Treaty (ECT or "Treaty") is the most relevant instrument to this regard, considering its geographical scope and the matters treated therein. As such, it represents the main attempt to provide for global rules on energy security. The ECT, in fact, encourages the energy cooperation between its around fifty Contracting Parties in a wide range of sectors, such as trade, transit, environmental protection and investment promotion and protection. As regards investment promotion and protection, the ECT provides for a regime which is unique at the international level. It safeguards energy investments by providing, in particular, for fair and equitable treatment, most constant protection and security, no discrimination and most favoured nation treatment standards. A major feature of the ECT investment regime is the prevision of an investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism, laid down in Art. 26, by which investors can bring claims before international arbitral tribunals for alleged breaches of ECT investment commitments which undermine the investments made by them in host Countries. Since the first dispute was filed on April 2001, namely AES Summit Generation Limited v. Republic of Hungary (ICSID Case No. ARB/01/4), nearly a hundred and seventeen arbitral proceedings have been incepted so far, eighty of which – amounting to about the 70% of all cases – have been commenced during the last six years. A state of things suggesting how the Treaty's ISDS regime, after a slow start, has become an important tool by which energy investors can protect their investments. Notwithstanding such a remarkable achievement, however, there are many shortcomings that prevent the ECT from becoming the reference legal framework for international energy security. To this respect, it is worth mentioning the non-participation of major economies such as the USA and China and the decision of Russia to not ratify the Treaty after having applied it provisionally until 2009. In addition, it is worth highlighting also the decision of Italy to withdraw – first and unique case – starting from 1 January 2016. The withdrawal took effect during a turning point of the ECT: by that time, the ISDS mechanism had just started to be fully-tested by investors, especially within the EU context; in addition, the Treaty was experiencing a process of relaunching and updating which culminated with the adoption of the International Energy Charter, a political declaration aimed at bringing the ECT in line with current challenges in energy security. While Italy's withdrawal undisputedly undermined the authority of the Treaty, it had the merit of reviving the doctrinal debate on unsettled and not entirely explored issues concerning its application, especially within the EU context. To this respect, the issues posed by the mixed accession of the EU and its Member States to the ECT stand out. For long, the doctrine has pointed out many interpretative concerns about to what extent the Treaty, in particular the investment regime and, more specifically, its ISDS mechanism, applies to relations between EU Member States and between them and the EU. Following the Italian withdrawal, such issues have gained new momentum and are likely to be explored more in depth in the foreseeable future. This thesis examines three broad subjects: the attempt of the ECT to become the reference set of rules on international energy security; the many issues posed by the mixed accession of the EU and its Member States to it; the implications of the Italian withdrawal in terms of investment promotion and protection. Accordingly, this work consists of three chapters. Chapter I provides for an overview of the ECT as the reference set of rules on international energy security. To this respect, it describes the main steps of the Energy Charter process, i.e. the process that, starting with the European Energy Charter of 1991 and arriving to the International Energy Charter of 2015, led to the adoption of the ECT on 1994 and its entering into force on 1998. Moreover, the chapter describes the main fields of energy cooperation dealt with by the ECT, markedly trade, transit and, more important, investment promotion and protection. The purpose of the chapter is to point out the importance of the Treaty for the promotion and protection of energy investments and the complex issues that prevent its vocation to become the reference international framework for global energy security. Chapter II focuses on the complex procedural issues that the mixed accession of the EU and its Member States poses with respect to the ECT ISDS mechanism. After having examined the status of the EU as a REIO party to the ECT, the qualification of the latter as a "mixed agreement" under EU law and the division of competences within the EU on the matters dealt with by it, the chapter focuses on the following issues: questions of international responsibility of the EU and its Member States for the performance and for breaches of ECT investment provisions; the applicability of the ECT investment regime and, more specifically, its ISDS mechanism, to EU internal relations; the relevance and, more specifically, the applicability of EU law in investor-State disputes filed under Art. 26; the relationship between EU law and the ECT. Chapter III deals, in the first place, with Italy's withdrawal from the ECT. More precisely, the chapter investigates the reasons of the withdrawal and its consequences in terms of investment promotion and protection and on the future of the Energy Charter process. In the second place, the chapter examines the disputes filed against the Italian State under Art. 26. To this regard, after having taken into account the wider context of the ECT ISDS regime and the reasons of the sudden raise of disputes against Italy, it focuses on two cases, namely Blusun S.A., Jean-Pierre Lecorcier and Michael Stein v. Italian Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/14/3) and Eskosol S.p.A. in liquidazione v. Italian Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/15/50). Both cases are still pending. As to earlier, which is the first case filed against Italy under Art. 26 ECT, an award has been rendered by the tribunal established to settle the dispute. Currently, a proceeding for annulment of the award is underway. Regarding the latter, a decision on an application under Rule 41(5) of the ICSID Rules of Procedures for Arbitration Proceedings has been rendered by the tribunal constituted to settle the controversy. Finally, the work is closed by some conclusive remarks with respect to the matters treated therein. As it will be seen, the issues discussed in this thesis have found – and indeed are increasingly founding – much attention in academic and specialised literature, since they touch very sensitive questions of international, EU and national law. Said issues, however, are far from being comprehensively investigated by the doctrine. As things stand, in the course of the analysis, the state of the art of the doctrinal debate will be taken into account first. Then, the issues at hand will be examined in light of relevant ECT case law. To this respect, some of the awards and decisions rendered by ECT arbitral tribunals – notably those established to settle disputes involving EU Member States and investors therefrom – will be examined with particular attention. By following this methodology, it will be possible to appreciate how said issues emerge or are likely to emerge in investment disputes and are or are likely to be dealt with by ECT arbitral tribunals. In other words, it will be possible to appreciate how said issues affect, in practice, the ECT and process. The aim of the present investigation is to contribute to the debate on the ECT and process, a debate which has just started, and which is likely to get academics and practitioners busy in the future. To this respect, it must be highlighted that ECT practice, now more than ever, is in a state of constant evolution. As a result, additional food for thought is likely to emerge in the future. Indeed, this work is the result of a research started in February 2015 at the Centre for Climate Change, Energy and Environmental Law of the University of Eastern Finland and completed in Rome on August 2018. In the intervening period, subsequent decisions and awards rendered by ECT arbitral tribunals as well as by the Court of Justice of the EU – namely the Achmea Judgement rendered on March 2018 – shed some light on the issues discussed in this work while at the same time raised new questions and interpretative concerns, with the result that a constant work of adaption has been necessary in order to take into account the latest developments on the matter. Accordingly, this work can be seen as a starting point for addressing the many interpretative issues which affect the ECT and which will assume further complexity as far as new awards and decisions are rendered by ECT arbitral tribunals.
When I was asked to write the foreword for this important journal I was honored. Honored and troubled. What could a conservation ecologist say about development that was particularly relevant at such a critical time in Madagascar's history? During such a distinct period of uncertainty and change, what reflection might I offer that would be helpful, hopeful, and reasonable? Over the weeks, I have witnessed the turmoil of a country searching for inner peace while dedicated individuals continue to work towards improving lives and safeguarding the future of this wonderfully unique island. And in struggling with what to say in the face of inevitable change, three concepts keep coming to mind. The first two concepts come from my ecology training; the last emerges from my experiences as a development professional. These concepts are neither new nor ground-breaking. They certainly won't solve all the challenges of Madagascar conservation and development today. Yet together, these three concepts may offer some orientation for continued integrated conservation and development work in a changing Madagascar. The first concept is connectedness. Connections are the key to ecology. Species and ecological processes linked in one complex system. Natural elements connected to people and culture through a complex web of relationships, desires and values. At this critical juncture in Madagascar's history, it seems imperative to both understand and exploit these connections. Healthy people cannot exist in an unhealthy environment. Political decisions are intimately connected to the well-being of people and the survival of their natural resource base. As choices are made, it is imperative that decisions not be taken in short-term haste to meet the pressing needs of today at the expense of the longer term needs of both today and tomorrow.A thoughtful process that embraces the connectedness of all Malagasy people to each other and their natural world is a difficult one. But by keeping these connections intact, by ensuring that each part of the system is understood and valued, a more rewarding, equitable and sustainable future can be secured. The second concept is resiliency. Resiliency relates to the ability to withstand and recover from shocks and perturbances while maintaining functionality and equilibrium. It is clear that Madagascar is experiencing shocks. More frequent and intense cyclones, changing climatic patterns, severe periods of drought and unprecedented pressure for natural resources tax the recovery abilities of humans and the natural world alike. Recent socio-political changes are undoubtedly testing the resiliency of Malagasy society. New pathways for development in Madagascar must offer resilient options for the Malagasy people.The sharing of development dividends amongst a larger number of citizens across Malagasy society will enhance the resiliency of Madagascar as a whole. Safeguarding natural assets, including soil, water, forests, fisheries and biological diversity, creates a social safety net that will allow Madagascar to cope in the short-term, and thrive in the long-term. The last concept is reconciliation. Of all the concepts, this is probably the most difficult one. In the financial world, we reconcile our accounts. Inputs and outputs, income and expenses are scrutinized to ensure that the ledger adds up at the end of the day. But such reconciliation demands an honest and clear accounting system where incomes are transparent and real costs are understood. In Madagascar, this means making development decisions that incorporate the real costs of leaving marginalized and vulnerable members of society behind, real costs of irrevocable and detrimental changes to the functioning of natural systems, real costs of losing species, and the real cost of not being able to adapt and cope with climatic changes. It means internalizing and making rationale decisions about these costs now, so that Malagasy children will be able to ensure that the ledger adds up at the end of the century. But there is another definition of reconciliation, the coming together of opposing parties to r esolve conflict and find peace. Undoubtedly, this is the hardest part. It involves open and participatory dialogue that teases out seemingly intractable issues to find balanced solutions that everyone can live with. Reconciliation cannot be forced – people must want to engage, must be willing to expose truths and be open to exploring other perspectives. With a commitment to compromise and dignity, reconciliation brings healing and harmony. It is incumbent upon us, the conservation and development community, to support the Malagasy people in efforts to come together and embrace the linkages between people and their natural world through a process of reconciliation and thoughtful weighing of trade-offs to ensure a resilient Madagascar. The lessons and articles we share through this journal offer important insights and lessons to move us in that direction.Réflexions sur Madagascar, pays en évolution Je me suis sentie en même temps honorée et troublée quand ce grand journal m'a fait honneur en m'invitant à écrire une préface. Quel sujet pertinent sur le développement pourrait donc écrire une éco-conservationniste à un moment si critique de l'histoire de Madagascar ? Que pourrais-je proposer comme réflexion qui soit à la fois utile, empreinte d'espoir et raisonnable pendant cette période marquée par l'incertitude et le changement ? Pendant des semaines, j'ai été le témoin de l'agitation d'un pays à la recherche de paix intérieure pendant que des gens dévoués poursuivaient leurs efforts afin d'améliorer les conditions de vie et préserver le futur de ce pays merveilleux et unique. Alors que ces pensées me taraudaient face à un changement inévitable, trois concepts me sont venus à l'esprit. Les deux premiers me viennent directement de ma formation en écologie alors que le dernier a été façonné par mon expérience professionnelle acquise dans le développement. Ces concepts ne sont ni nouveaux ni révolutionnaires et ils ne vont vraisemblablement pas constituer la solution à tous les problèmes du développement et de la conservation de Madagascar actuels. Cependant, ils pourront conjointement tracer une voie dans la poursuite des travaux de conservation et de développement intégré pour ce pays en pleine évolution qu'est Madagascar. Le premier concept porte sur la connexité. Les connexions sont les clefs de l'écologie avec les espèces et les processus écologiques qui sont liés dans un système complexe. Nous avons ici des éléments naturels reliés à des gens, à leur culture au sein d'un réseau complexe de rapports, de désirs et de valeurs. À ce moment délicat de l'histoire de Madagascar, ces connexions doivent être à la fois comprises et exploitées. Des gens sains ne peuvent vivre dans un environnement malsain. Les décisions politiques sont intimement liées au bien-être des gens et à la survie de leurs ressources naturelles de base. Lorsque des choix sont faits, il est impératif que les décisions ne soient pas prises dans la hâte du cours terme pour satisfaire des besoins immédiats au détriment des besoins à plus long terme actuels et futurs. Un processus réfléchi qui englobe l'ensemble des rapports connexes régissant tous les habitants de Madagascar entre eux mais aussi avec leur patrimoine naturel n'est pas aisé. Cependant c'est en maintenant ces liens, en assurant que chaque élément du système est compris et mis en valeur, qu'un avenir plus prometteur, plus équitable et plus durable peut être assuré. Le deuxième concept porte sur la résilience. La résilience se réfère à la capacité de résister et de se ressaisir des chocs et perturbations tout en maintenant fonctionnalité et équilibre. Il est clair que Madagascar est en train de subir des chocs. Des cyclones plus fréquents et plus intenses, des changements climatiques, de graves épisodes de sécheresse et une pression sans précédent sur les ressources naturelles mettent en péril les capacités de se recomposer, qu'il s'agisse des gens ou de la nature. Les changements socio-politiques récents mettent assurément à l'épreuve la résilience de la société malgache. Les nouvelles voies pour le développement de Madagascar doivent fournir des options résilientes pour les gens de Madagascar. Le partage des acquis du développement entre un plus grand nombre de citoyens de la société malgache améliorera la résilience de Madagascar dans l'ensemble. Sauvegarder le patrimoine naturel, y compris la terre, l'eau, les forêts, la pêche et la diversité biologique crée un filet de sécurité social qui permettra à Madagascar de composer à court terme et de prospérer à long terme. Le dernier concept, qui est sans doute le plus ardu des trois, est le rapprochement. Dans le monde financier, nous procédons à des états de rapprochement de nos comptes. Des entrées et des sorties, des revenus et des dépenses qui sont contrôlés pour s'assurer que les soldes dans les livres s'équilibrent en fin de journée. Mais un tel rapprochement requiert un livre comptable honnête et clair dans lequel les revenus sont transparents et les charges réelles sont comprises. À Madagascar, cela signifie de prendre des décisions en matière de développement en incorporant les coûts réels liés au fait que certaines personnes marginalisées ou vulnérables de la société soient écartées du processus, les coûts réels des changements irrévocables et préjudiciables apportés au fonctionnement des systèmes naturels, les coûts réels de la perte d'espèces naturelles et les coûts réels liés au fait de ne pas être capable de s'adapter et de faire face aux changements climatiques. Il s'agit d'absorber ces coûts et de prendre dès à présent des décisions raisonnables à leur propos de sorte que les enfants de Madagascar seront capables d'assurer que les soldes dans les livres s'équilibrent à la fin du siècle. Il existe aussi une autre définition du rapprochement, celle de la rencontre de parties en opposition pour résoudre un conflit et trouver la paix. Il s'agit sans nul doute de l'acte le plus difficile à jouer car il repose sur un dialogue ouvert et participatif jusqu'à la limite des situations inextricables afin d'aboutir à des consensus équilibrés où chacun peut se retrouver. Le rapprochement ne peut être forcé – les gens doivent vouloir s'engager, doivent être disposés à exposer des vérités et s'ouvrir pour rechercher des alternatives. Avec la dignité et la volonté réelle de dialoguer, le rapprochement peut panser les plaies et apporter l'harmonie. Il nous incombe, à nous membres de la communauté de la conservation et du développement, de soutenir les Malgaches dans leurs efforts pour se rassembler et renforcer les liens entre les gens et la nature dans un processus de rapprochement avec des compromis soigneusement réfléchis pour assurer la résilience de Madagascar. Les leçons et les articles que nous partageons dans ce journal constituent ainsi des aperçus importants pour nous mener sur cette voie.
Security Council 8221st Meeting ; 5/21/2018 Questions Remain over Syria's Chemical Weapons Programme, Security Council Hears, as Speakers Call for Agreement on Suitable Ac… https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/sc13276.doc.htm 1/5 MEETINGS COVERAGE Questions Remain over Syria's Chemical Weapons Programme, Security Council Hears, as Speakers Call for Agreement on Suitable Accountability Mechanism After more than four years of work, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) was still unable to verify that Syria's initial declaration on its chemical weapons programme was accurate, delegates told the Security Council today, underlining that questions remained about the use of such weapons in that country. Discussions between the OPCW Technical Secretariat and the Syrian Government were continuing, although they had not led to the resolution of any of the remaining issues regarding the completeness and accuracy of Syria's initial declaration, said Thomas Markram, Director and Deputy to the High Representative for Disarmament Aairs. Stressing that resolving those outstanding issues would allow for shared condence in Syria's declaration across the international community, he emphasized: "The persistent allegations of the use of chemical weapons in Syria underscore the need to identify solutions and reach agreement on an appropriate accountability mechanism." The OPCW Fact-Finding Mission was continuing its work and was currently in Damascus looking into allegations of the use of chemical weapons that were brought to the attention of the OPCW Director-General by the Government, said Mr. Markram. The next report of the Fact-Finding Mission would be submitted when it considered that it had sucient information and was in a position to draw a conclusion. In the meantime, the Syrian Government had continued eorts to destroy the two remaining chemical weapons production facilities in the country, he said, adding that destruction of those facilities was expected to be complete within two to three months from the start date and would be veried by OPCW. Expressing concern that OPCW was still unable to verify Syria's initial declaration on its chemical weapons programme, the representative of Sweden noted there were still a number of serious outstanding issues that had yet to be resolved. Specically, the Director-General last month reported that the initial 5 outstanding questions had grown to 22, including the case of the Syrian Scientic Studies and Research Centre. Emphasizing that sarin and chlorine stocks did indeed exist in Syria, France's representative said that the country had either deceived the Council or pursued a clandestine chemical weapons programme. Given those two options, France called on Syria to respond to all unanswered questions, "and there are many of them". The Damascus-based regime's responsibility for the use of chemical weapons had been publicly and unambiguously established by the Joint Investigative Mechanism and any attempt to discredit its clear conclusion could not change that reality, he said, stressing that impunity for those who used chemical weapons was not an option. The speaker for the United States said a few years ago, a single chemical weapons attack would have united the Council in shock and anger, but now there was a regime that used them "practically every other week". Letting one regime o the hook emboldened others, she said, adding that the world was rapidly sliding back to a time when people lived in fear of colourless, shapeless gas leaving them gasping for air. Her country refused to believe that the Council could not come together once again on chemical weapons, despite dierences between its members. Echoing those concerns, the United Kingdom's representative noted that, in the absence of the Joint Investigative Mechanism, there was no proper channel to ensure accountability. Substantive gaps, inconsistencies and discrepancies in Syria's declaration remained and the seriousness of the situation had increased over time. Turning to the recent poisoning in the town of Salisbury in her country, she said no explanation had been provided as to how a military-grade nerve agent had come to be used to sicken two people. There should be no more victims of chemical weapons attacks, whether they took place in the war zones of Syria or in an English town, she stressed. The representative of the Russian Federation said that the conclusions of the Joint Investigative Mechanism were nothing more than a pre-ordained, pre‑programmed result aimed at accusing the Syrian authorities. The Russian Federation was unable to support extension of the Mechanism's mandate in an unchanged form, he said, highlighting that his delegation had proposed a specic alternative and circulated a draft resolution which was currently "in blue". Syria's representative said that his Government had fullled its commitments under the Chemical Weapons Convention and Council resolution 2118 (2013). It had eliminated its chemical weapons programme in record time, which was a rst in the history of OPCW, he stressed, and the Joint Investigative Mechanism had conrmed that fact in its June 2014 report. The 5/21/2018 Questions Remain over Syria's Chemical Weapons Programme, Security Council Hears, as Speakers Call for Agreement on Suitable Ac… https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/sc13276.doc.htm 2/5 Syrian Army did not use chemical weapons nor did it possess them, rather they had been used against civilians by Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL/Da'esh), Nusrah Front and other associated entities. Also speaking today were the representatives of the Netherlands, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Ethiopia, China, Bolivia, Côte d'Ivoire, Poland, Equatorial Guinea and Peru. The meeting began at 10:03 a.m. and ended at 11:47 a.m. Brieng THOMAS MARKRAM, Director and Deputy to the High Representative for Disarmament Aairs, said that the Syrian Government had continued eorts to destroy the two remaining chemical weapons production facilities in the country. Destruction of those facilities was expected to be complete within two to three months from the start date and would be veried by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), he said, stressing that the long-awaited and veried destruction of the two facilities was an essential step towards the full implementation of Security Council resolution 2118 (2013). Discussions between the OPCW Technical Secretariat and the Syrian Government were continuing, although they had not led to the resolution of any of the remaining issues. "The OPCW Technical Secretariat continues to be unable to conrm the completeness and accuracy of Syria's declaration," he said, underscoring that resolving those outstanding issues would permit shared condence in Syria's declaration within the international community. The OPCW Fact-Finding Mission was continuing its work and was currently in Damascus looking into allegations of the use of chemical weapons that were brought to the attention of the OPCW Director-General by the Government, he said. The next report of the Fact-Finding Mission would be submitted when it considered that it had sucient information and was in a position to draw a conclusion, although those conclusions would not entail attribution of responsibility in those cases where the use of chemical weapons was determined. "The persistent allegations of the use of chemical weapons in Syria underscore the need to identify solutions and reach agreement on an appropriate accountability mechanism," he emphasized, adding that the Secretary-General and the High Representative for Disarmament Aairs had repeatedly underlined the need to avoid impunity and ensure that those responsible for the use of chemical weapons were identied and held responsible. Statements NIKKI R. HALEY (United States) said the Council often talked about chemical weapons, but she worried that sometimes it lost sight of the human side of chemical weapons attacks. A century had lapsed between the rst use of chemical weapons in the First World War and the chemical weapons attack in Khan Shaykun one year ago today, and in that time, several international instruments sought to prohibit such weapons. The international community dared to believe that once day chemical weapons would be relegated to the history books. Then came Syria, where shared disgust led the Council to adopt resolution 2118 (2013) requiring the scheduled destruction of Syria's chemical weapons, followed in 2015 by the creation of the Joint Investigative Mechanism on Chemical Weapons Use in Syria. The United Nations found that the Assad regime, as well as Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL/Da'esh), had been responsible for the use of chemical weapons, and the Council dared to believe that consensus over the use of such weapons would hold. "But, we know what happened next," she said. The Assad regime continued to use chemical weapons, with one Council member shielding that regime from the consequences. The world today was a more dangerous place, with the Assad regime dropping chlorine bombs on men, women and children, she said. A few years ago, a single chemical weapons attack would have united the Council in shock and anger, but now there was a regime that used them "practically every other week". Letting one regime o the hook emboldened others, she said, adding that the world was rapidly sliding back to a time when people lived in fear of colourless, shapeless gas leaving them gasping for air. Even as the Council remained deadlocked, some had stood up to demand accountability, with the General Assembly approving an impartial mechanism to investigate serious crimes in Syria and France establishing a partnership against impunity for the use of chemical weapons. At the same time, people in Syria were facing the terrifying reality of such heinous weapons. She invited Marmoun Morad, a Syrian physician who treated victims of the Khan Shaykun attack, present in the Council chamber this morning, to stand up, and saluted him for his courage and determination. He was present today to be an inspiration for all Council members, she said, adding that, if Mr. Morad was not going to stop treating victims of chemical weapons attacks, then the Council must not stop working to eliminate such weapons and to hold to account anyone, anywhere who used them. Concluding, she said her country refused to believe that the Council could not come together once again on chemical weapons, despite any dierences between its members. KAREL JAN GUSTAAF VAN OOSTEROM (Netherlands) recalled that Syria joined the Chemical Weapons Convention almost ve years ago, having promised to destroy and abandon its chemical weapons programme; yet month after month there was news that the Syrian regime's declaration could not be considered complete or accurate. One year ago, the Assad regime carried out the heinous 4 April 2017 chemical attack against Khan Shaykhun that resulted in the deaths of about 100 innocent Syrian civilians, including many children. The use of chemical weapons should never go unpunished, he stressed. The Council must act upon the conclusions of the Joint Investigative Mechanism and the outcomes of the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission. Further, the Council must intensify its eorts to achieve a mechanism that could continue the meticulous work of the Joint Investigative Mechanism. 5/21/2018 Questions Remain over Syria's Chemical Weapons Programme, Security Council Hears, as Speakers Call for Agreement on Suitable Ac… https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/sc13276.doc.htm 3/5 KAREN PIERCE (United Kingdom) recalled that the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission had concluded that sarin had been used at Khan Shaykhun and the Joint Investigative Mechanism had concluded that the Syrian regime was responsible for that attack. After more than four years of work, OPCW had yet to verify that Syria's declaration was accurate. Gaps, inconsistencies and discrepancies remained which were not trivial points of minor detail — they were substantive and the seriousness of the situation had increased over time. There could be no impunity, she said, pointing out that, in the absence of the Joint Investigative Mechanism, there was no proper mechanism to ensure accountability. There was still no explanation provided as to how a military-grade nerve agent had come to be used in the poisoning in Salisbury. There should be no more victims of chemical weapons attacks; whether they took place in the war zones of Syria or in an English town. KAIRAT UMAROV (Kazakhstan) said that the use of chemical weapons was absolutely unacceptable under any circumstances. His delegation was pleased that during the reporting period there had been some progress towards the destruction of the remaining two chemical weapons production facilities in Syria, although, at the same time, he expressed concern about the lack of progress in clarifying all outstanding issues regarding the Government's initial declaration. The Council had not yet restored its investigative potential, he noted, stressing the need for every eort to be made to nd common ground on the issue. It was extremely important and necessary to overcome all dierences among Council members that prevented the complete elimination of the threat of the use of chemical weapons in Syria. FRANÇOIS DELATTRE (France) said the responsibility of the Damascus-based regime for the use of chemical weapons had been publicly and unambiguously established by the Joint Investigative Mechanism. Any attempt to discredit and to cast into oblivion the clear conclusion of the Joint Investigative Mechanism could not change that reality. Emphasizing that sarin and chlorine stocks did, indeed, exist in Syria, he said that country had either deceived the Council or pursued a clandestine chemical weapons programme. Given those two options, France called on Syria to respond to all unanswered questions, "and there are many of them". Reiterating his country's full support for OPCW, he said the use of chemical weapons was a moral oense that undermined the fundamental standards of international law, as well as the credibility of the non-proliferation regime. A taboo had been broken in Syria, as in Salisbury and elsewhere. He went on to emphasize that impunity for those who used chemical weapons was not an option. Their use against civilians was a war crime and a crime against humanity, and perpetrators must be held to account. If there was an area in which the Council's credibility was at stake, it was chemical weapons, he said, delivering an urgent appeal for Council members to overcome their political dierences and put an end to the use of chemical weapons in Syria. That much was owed to civilians, who were the main victims of such weapons, and to the international non-proliferation regime. MANSOUR AYYAD SH. A. ALOTAIBI (Kuwait) said that, due to divisions within the Council, the justice he had hoped for in the Khan Shaykun incident had "vanished into thin air". The continued use of chemical weapons in Syria four years after the adoption of resolution 2118 (2013) was unacceptable. His delegation backed any mechanism that could achieve consensus in the Council and hold those responsible for committing such crimes to account, according to the principles outlined in resolution 2118 (2013). Indeed, the draft resolution tabled by the United States contained such elements. As such, he called on Member States to use that draft as the basis for future negotiations on any such mechanism. Stressing the importance of bringing perpetrators of chemical crimes to justice, he expressed support for the work of Joint Investigative Mechanism in assisting in the investigation and prosecution of such crimes in Syria and looked forward to hearing the results of its rst report, which would be discussed on 17 April in the General Assembly. TEKEDA ALEMU (Ethiopia) expressed concern for the "barbaric" chemical attack in Khan Shaykun one year ago and called for those responsible to be held accountable. Without a unied response from the Council, damage to the chemical weapons disarmament and non-proliferation regime could not be repaired. He expressed hope that the Syrian Government — with the support of OPCW — would eliminate its two remaining stationary above-ground facilities. In that connection, he reiterated the importance of continued communication between OPCW and the Syrian Government with the ultimate objective of addressing remaining gaps and inconsistencies. Meanwhile, it was imperative that the investigative work of the OPCW's Fact-Finding Mission continued on all allegations of chemical weapons use. Nevertheless, the Council had to address the current institutional gap by creating an independent, impartial and professional investigative mechanism that could identify all State and non-State actors responsible for such crimes. WU HAITAO (China) said that his delegation was greatly concerned by the use of chemical weapons against civilians in Syria and rmly opposed the use of such weapons under any circumstances. Recent incidents of suspected use of toxic chemicals were deeply concerning, and in that regard, establishing a new investigative mechanism to nd out the truth and prevent the recurrent use of such weapons was of vital importance. All parties should continue to insist that the Security Council and OPCW should be the main channels for addressing the use of chemical weapons. He hoped that the Syrian Government would continue to cooperate with OPCW on the resolution of the initial declaration and properly resolve the outstanding issues. Political settlement was the only way to resolve the Syria issue, and in that context, the international community should support the next round of Geneva talks. JUAN MARCELO ZAMBRANA TORRELIO (Bolivia) expressed concern about the latest reports of alleged uses of chemical weapons in Syria and believed that there could be no justication for the use of such weapons, irrespective of the circumstances. His delegation strongly supported the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission and called on all parties to ensure an investigation could be carried out in a transparent and eective manner. However, there was still the need for a mechanism 5/21/2018 Questions Remain over Syria's Chemical Weapons Programme, Security Council Hears, as Speakers Call for Agreement on Suitable Ac… https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/sc13276.doc.htm 4/5 to identify the perpetrators so they could stand trial before the competent bodies. The Security Council must not be politicized or exploited on that issue, he said, calling on the parties to seek greater dialogue to create an investigative mechanism. The only way to resolve the conict was through a political process led by the Syrian people. CARL SKAU (Sweden) said the failure to agree on a new, independent and impartial attributive mechanism for chemical weapons use in Syria cast a particularly dark shadow on the Council. He condemned the continued and repeated use of chemical weapons in Syria, which constituted a serious violation of international law and a threat to international peace and security. Regarding the implementation of resolution 2118 (2013), he expressed concern that OPCW was still unable to conrm whether Syria's initial declaration on its chemical weapons programme was accurate and complete. Indeed, there were still a number of serious outstanding issues. More specically, the Director-General last month reported that the initial 5 outstanding questions had grown to 22, including the case of the Syrian Scientic Studies and Research Centre. He went on to express deep regret that the Council had failed to agree on an extension of the Joint Investigative Mechanism, which was essential to protect the international disarmament and non‑proliferation regime and ensure accountability. BERNARD TANOH-BOUTCHOUE (Côte d'Ivoire) said cooperation among the Syrian Government, OPCW and the United Nations Oce for Project Services (UNOPS) aimed at the destruction of remaining chemical weapons production units was encouraging. He also thanked those States which had contributed to the Syria Trust Fund for the Destruction of Chemical Weapons. However, major challenges persisted, he said, urging Syria to continue its cooperation with OPCW to address outstanding issues, including the destruction of remaining chemical weapons facilities. Any use of chemical weapons was a breach of the Chemical Weapons Convention and a violation of hard-won international standards banning such weapons. He encouraged OPCW, the Fact-Finding Mission and the Syrian Government to continue their cooperation, and called for a political settlement to the Syrian conict. PAWEL RADOMSKI (Poland) said his delegation had taken note with utmost concern that the OPCW Technical Secretariat had been unable to conrm whether declarations submitted by Syria were accurate and complete. Once again, Poland joined the Secretary-General in calling on Syria to extend its fullest cooperation with the declaration assessment team. A clear message must be sent that the use of chemical weapons by anyone would not be tolerated, and the international community must be empowered to address each and every chemical weapons attack and to hold perpetrators accountable. Poland believed that the United States draft resolution was a good basis for further discussion on investigating the use of chemical weapons. He emphasized that the credibility of the non-proliferation regime, as well as collective security were at stake. Poland also hoped that those responsible for the reckless act in Salisbury would soon be held accountable. ANATOLIO NDONG MBA (Equatorial Guinea) said the use of chemical weapons posed a clear threat to international peace and security. The divergent positions of Council members had demonstrated that the end to the use of chemical weapons in Syria hinged on an inclusive political agreement. His delegation armed the urgent need for an investigative mechanism, calling it a collective responsibility and moral obligation to the victims of the conict. He called for Council members to recall their important role in the promotion of international peace and security. VASSILY A. NEBENZIA (Russian Federation) said it would be constructive to conduct a thorough analysis of the Khan Shaykhun incident and the consequences of that event in the context of global and regional security. The circumstances around that incident remained obscure. The so-called work done by the Joint Investigative Mechanism could not be taken seriously by professionals. The conclusions of that Mechanism were nothing more than a pre-ordained, pre‑programmed result aimed at accusing the Syrian authorities. They ran counter to the laws of physics, chemistry, aviation, ballistics and explosive matters. Experts did not travel to the location where the incident occurred and they had built their guesses on information received from armed groups and dubious structures that supported terrorist groups, including the white helmets. The Russian Federation was unable to support the extension of the Joint Investigative Mechanism mandate in an unchanged form, he said. Armed groups had amassed considerable capacity in chemical warfare. His delegation had proposed a specic alternative to the former Joint Investigative Mechanism and circulated a draft resolution which was currently "in blue". The urgent need was to conduct an analysis of the production of chemical weapons by non-State actors, as well as their eective use of those toxic substances. Nevertheless, Western colleagues were insisting on the recreation of a mechanism that was convenient for them and that would rubber stamp their own conclusions. International law fell to pieces when suspicions became the queen of evidence. Countries continued to condently announce that chemical weapons were being used by Damascus, despite the absence of evidence and the clear political and military objectives behind such allegations. Lastly, he called for a Council meeting on Thursday regarding the incident in Salisbury. GUSTAVO MEZA-CUADRA (Peru), Council President for April, speaking in his national capacity, said chemical weapons attacks were atrocities committed in open deance of the non-proliferation regime, as well as a threat to international peace and security which the Council could not allow. He expressed Peru's concern about the accuracy of the Syrian Government's declarations, adding that the Syrian authorities must be encouraged to provide all information without delay. Paying tribute to the Fact-Finding Mission, he said its work must be complemented by an independent mechanism that would make it possible to assign responsibility for the use of chemical weapons in line with international law. 5/21/2018 Questions Remain over Syria's Chemical Weapons Programme, Security Council Hears, as Speakers Call for Agreement on Suitable Ac… https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/sc13276.doc.htm 5/5 MOUNZER MOUNZER (Syria) said Syria had fullled its commitments under the Chemical Weapons Convention and Council resolution 2118 (2013). It had also always fully cooperated — in a positive, transparent and exible manner — despite great challenges and a complicated and dicult security situation. The Syrian Government had been able to eliminate its chemical weapons programme in record time, which was a rst in the history of OPCW. The Joint Investigative Mechanism conrmed that in its June 2014 report. But, rather than commending the Government for its eorts, some Council members — including the United States, which had not destroyed its chemical arsenal, United Kingdom and France — had mastered the art of deception and misinformation to dominate the world and take it back to the era of colonialism and trusteeship. They were investing in new Council meeting formats with one clear goal: to obstruct the Syrian army's progress against armed terrorist groups which they supported. He referred to theatrics staged by "white helmets" whose claims about the use of chemical weapons in eastern Ghouta coincided with its liberation from armed terrorist groups. Recalling the incident in Khan Shaykhun, he said the Joint Investigative Mechanism had refused to visit that location, relying instead on false witness statements and so-called open sources whose work was unfounded and lacking in credibility. His Government had insisted before the Council and the OPCW Executive Council that it condemned the use of chemical weapons and any other weapon of mass destruction for any reason in any place. The Syrian Army did not use chemical weapons nor did it possess them, he said. Rather, they had been used against civilians by ISIL, Nusrah Front and other associated entities. He said his Government had sent the Council and specialized agencies 130 letters on the possession, production and use of chemical weapons by armed terrorist groups, but, unfortunately, it never got an answer regarding measures that the Council might take against those States which facilitated terrorist access to such weapons. He went on to ask how the United States, United Kingdom and France could claim to be committee to justice while having carried out "blood-curdling attacks" in several countries in the Middle East, Asia and Latin America and the Caribbean over many years. The partnership against impunity established by France represented an attempt to set up a politicized parallel mechanism that would serve the interests of States opposed to the Syrian Government, he said. His Government was committed to implementing its obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention and it would continue its war against terrorists regardless of political blackmail and cheap attempts to exploit the suering of the Syrian people. Concluding, he asked the representative of the Netherlands why no information had been provided about chemical agents aboard an aircraft that fell on Amsterdam in 1992, creating an orange-coloured explosion. For information media. Not an ocial record.
THE CHOICE OF WORDS, TRANSITIVITY, AND IDEOLOGY OF THE HEADLINES IN THE JAKARTA POST REPORTING APEC IN INDONESIA 2013 Lydia Anggar Wati Language and Literature Department, Faculty of Languages and Arts, Surabaya State University lydia82012@gmail.com Lisetyo Ariyanti, S.S., M.Pd Language and Literature Department, Faculty of Languages and Arts, Surabaya State University lisetyo.a@yahoo.com ABSTRAK Penelitian ini fokus dalam menganalisa headlines mengenai berita APEC karena headlines menyimpan informasi penting dari peristiwa di dunia. Rumusan masalah diantaranya (1) apa saja word choice dalam headlines di Koran The Jakarta Post pemberitaan APEC di Indonesia 2013, (2) apa saja transitivity yang ditemukan di headlines The Jakarta Post pemberitaan APEC di Indonesia 2013, (3) sikap ideologis apa pada word choices dan transitivity di headlines The Jakarta Post pemberitaan APEC di Indonesia 2013. Penelitian ini menggunakan deskriptif kualitatif. Data dikumpulkan dari koran harian The Jakarta Post mengenai APEC tanggal 9 September 2013 sampai 9 Oktober 2013 (31 hari). Hasil penelitian ini: 1) word choice yang ditemukan dalam headlines ditulis dalam bentuk simple present tense menunjukkan peristiwa yang baru saja terjadi. Headlines ditulis dalam bentuk klausa penuh yang terdiri dari sedikitnya subjek dan kata kerja. Pada headlines terdapat bentuk omisi dari verba bantu be agar penulisan berita lebih efektif, 2) proses verba sebagian besar menggunakan material process. Sirkumtansi dalam headlines ditulis oleh frase nomina dan frase kata kerja. APEC sering disebutkan sebagai aktor atau pelaku dalam headlines yang memiliki verba positif seperti vows, talks, hopes, changers. Dari kata kerja tersebut terlihat kekuatan dominasi aktor pada tujuan. Kata Kunci: headlines, word choice, transitivity, ideology ABSTRACT This study focuses on the analysis of the headlines newspaper in APEC news event because headlines provide the main important information of the events in the world. The research questions are (1) what the word choice is found in the headlines of The Jakarta Post reporting APEC in Indonesia 2013, (2) what the transitivity is found in the headlines of The Jakarta Post reporting APEC in Indonesia 2013, (3) what ideological in word choice and transitivity found in the headlines of The Jakarta Post reporting APEC in Indonesia 2013. The study is descriptive qualitative. The data was collected The Jakarta Post daily newspaper about APEC news event from September 9th, 2013 until October 9th, 2013 (31 days). The study found: 1) word choice is found in headlines is written in simple present tense form to show the immediate past happening. The headlines are written by full clause form which consist of minimal a subject and a verb. There is omission in headlines as the aim of the effectiveness headlines writing, 2) the process of the verbs are mostly material process. The circumstances of the headlines are written by noun phrase and verb phrases. APEC is mostly mentioned as the actor or the doer in the headlines that has positive verbs such as vows, talks, hopes, changers. From those verbs that is seen dominance power in actor for the goal. Keywords: headlines, word choice, transitivity, ideology INTRODUCTION Language is very important in human life to make good interaction, people need language to communicate with other. The language in use for communication is called discourse (Cook, 1989:6). It means that all of the language to use for communicating with other people is named "discourse". In the recently times, Linguists' interest in discourse focus on the linguistic structure of the text into how texts draw in the social process. The reason is linguists' want to get satisfied more than analyzing linguistic text which focused in linguistic features only. The knowledge of understanding in grammar, syntax, morphology, semantic and phonology of the text have not need of understanding in a text. The rhetoric intent, the coherence, and the worldview that the author and receptor convey the similarity essential of the text (Kaplan, 1990) as cited in Taiwo (2007:218). Texts always produce and read in real world with all the complexity, not in the isolation area. Consequently, language can show the reality. Language delivers from word by word in written or oral a broad sense of meanings and the meaning delivers with those words in social, political, and historical condition. Language can bring the power that shows in written or spoken. Mass media, it means that delivery message. It has two types of mass media. There are printed mass media and electronic mass media. Printed media are newspaper, tabloids, and magazines. Electronic mass media includes radio, smart-phone, and television. It is used to communicate with other political as the instrument to convey idea, message, and political work program. It has hidden of power relation. As one of the printed mass media, newspaper become as one of the most popular mass media. It occurs because newspapers contain many variant of news every day. By using actions of outstanding figures and statement, newspapers have formed. Opinion leaders, government, newspaper editors, etc, play crucial role in shaping the issue in the society and setting the boundaries of what is talked about, how is talked about (Taiwo, 2007: 218). However, the critical reader frequently takes the new granted. The analysis focused on the analysis of the headline newspaper because the headline summarize the content of the news, and attract the reader to read the article. The writer of newspaper always makes the headline short but in a headline can describe the core of the complicated new story in a few words. In Richardson (2007), Van Dijk (1988) says that news headlines are particularly key for the way readers understand of news text, they stakes that monitor attention, perception and reading process. The study concerned on headlines since daily newspaper provides the main important information of events in the world. Nevertheless, it is difficult for readers to read all of the news articles in the daily newspapers because all the variant news are very interesting and the time restraint. Therefore, they have to be selective by looking on the headline. The main function of news headline is to make the readers easily to know the main content of the news and the general picture of the news stories although they do not read all news stories. The study chooses The Jakarta Post daily newspaper as the sources of data since The Jakarta Post is the leading daily English language newspaper in Indonesia that published since 1983. The newspaper was launched on April 25th 1983. The paper is owned by PT Bina Media Tenggara, and the head office is in the nation's capital, Jakarta. It is the largest English language newspaper in Indonesia with an average circulation of around 50,000 copies. (www.wikipedia.com/jakarta-post). The analysis of headlines reporting APEC (Asia-Pacific Economy Cooperation) 2013 in Bali, Indonesia was the focus of the research since the news in September 2nd 2013 until October 14th 2013. In that day, Indonesia prepare everything what is needed to annual meeting of APEC in this year held in Nusa Dua, Bali, Indonesia. APEC is established in 1989 which has the aim to strengthen economic growth and strengthen the community of nations in the Asia Pacific. In the annual meeting in this year, APEC generate seven agreement. APEC have the important role in economic global. In that meeting, there are delegates 21 state leader who are important people in their country as presidents and a hundreds business people from whole the world. However, there are many particular world of economy-politic that they used. (http://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerja_Sama_Ekonomi_Asia_Pasifik) The study has There are two similar studies. First, a similar studies was conducted by Kirana (2009). She conducted a study entitled "Critical Discourse Analysis of Headlines in The Jakarta Post Reporting Invasion in Gaza". Kirana's study and this study are quite similar on the analysis of headlines. The difference is sited of the data. She uses the data of the event of conflict in Gaza. However, this study analyzes headlines in story event of APEC 2013 that held in Indonesia. Second, a study was conducted by Yunianti (2010). She conducted a study entitled "Critical Discourse Analysis in The Jakarta Post Reporting Ruhut's Behavior During Parliament Inquiry Session On The Bank Century". The difference between this study and Yunianti's study, we have the same case (power and ideology), but this study analysis newspaper headlines while her study analyses newspaper's article. In the end of her study, she found ideological value that is showed by kinds of syntactical and word choice features utilized by articles The Jakarta Post newspaper. Furthermore, this study analyzes the headlines as the aim was attempt to look at how the language is used headlines to show particular social ideologies and power relations. Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) as the method of Discourse Analysis was used as the approach to show development of linguistics features which is used in the headlines focused in studying and analyzing the linking between linguistics analysis and social analysis, the ideology, and power relations. The analysis headlines are produced by actual and social matters. CDA was considerably useful to show the source of power, dominance, abuse, inequality and bias and how these sources are initiated, maintained, reproduced and transformed within specific social, economic, political and historical context. More specifically, the study focused on the analysis of ideological representation in the headline present in examining the word choice and transitivity, particularly transitivity of the headlines. Therefore, this study is written to know the ideological distance underlying the linguistics forms existed in the headlines in The Jakarta Post newspaper reporting APEC in Indonesia. Hence, the study wants to analyze the word choice and transitivity of the headlines in The Jakarta Post newspaper reporting APEC in Indonesia 2013 so that the research questions are as follows: 1)What word choice is found in the headlines of The Jakarta Post reporting APEC in Indonesia 2013?, 2)What transitivity is found in headlines of The Jakarta Post reporting APEC in Indonesia 2013?, 3)What ideological stance in the word choice and transitivity found in headlines of The Jakarta Post reporting APEC in Indonesia 2013?. Moreover, the purposes of the study are: 1)To describe the word choice found of headlines in The Jakarta Post reporting APEC in Indonesia 2013. 2)To describe the transitivity found of the headlines in The Jakarta Post reporting APEC in Indonesia 2013. 4)To reveal the ideological stance in the word choice and transitivity found of headlines in The Jakarta Post reporting APEC in Indonesia 2013. The study intends to analyze word choice items and transitivity of the headlines APEC in The Jakarta Post by using CDA theory. The study is expected to be able to give theoretical and practical contribution to the area of applied linguistics and CDA. By conducting this study, the study greatly expects that the finding will be useful to enrich the awareness of how language assists especially through mass media in the particular social ideology and power relations. METHODE The study will be conducted by using qualitative research. The study approaches to Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA). Furthermore, Fairclough (1989:26) states that CDA has three dimension, or stages, of critical discourse analysis: which include the relationship between texts, interactions, and contexts. Thus, there are three steps in analyzing discourse are through description, interpretation, and explanation. Data analysis in this study was also done in three steps which then results in three forms of analysis: first, the analysis of the text; second the analysis of the discourse practice which refers to the process of text production, text distribution and text consumption as commonly happen in the culture in which the writer and the participants live; third, the analysis of the social practice of the society in which the writer and participants live. The source of data in this study is taken from The Jakarta Post newspaper on alternate days from September 9th, 2013 until October 9th, 2013 (31 days). The data are the headlines which taken from The Jakarta Post newspaper. The study chooses the story event of APEC 2013 which held gathering in Indonesia. The data consist of 10 headlines. The data analysis technique in this research was applied descriptive analysis. The aim of the study was to describe certain phenomena occurred in this research setting. The certain phenomena probably occurred in terms of linguistic features. The stages of CDA are proposed by Fairclough (1989:26) was used in this research in the following procedure: 1)Description, In this stage which is concerned with formal properties of the text. There are several steps to describe the texts: Analyzing the word choice: the choices meaning of words used in the headlines, including all types of words, but particularly nouns, adjectives, verbs, and adverbs which carry connoted and denoted meanings. Analyzing the transitivity: sentence construction. There are three components to discuss in transitivity, they are the participant, the process, and the circumstance; 2)Interpretation, It is focused in relationship between text and interaction by seeing of the text as the product of a process of interpretation, notice that is used as the term interpretation for both the interactional process and a stage of analysis; 3)Explanation, It is focused in relationship between interaction and social context by determination of social process of production and interpretation, and their social effects. Then, the data collect based on the focus of this research. After that the data are analyzed based on word choice and transitivity. Thus, the data are interpreted descriptively and argumentatively by using critical discourse analysis devices in order to reveal the ideological stance of headlines of The Jakarta Post newspaper reporting APEC 2013 in Indonesia. DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION In line with study, the research question one, two, and three will be answered in this section. The data consist of 10 headlines which are displayed by three parts. In part A, the data will be analyzed by word choice, then part B analyzes transitivity and the last is part C that the data will be investigated by the ideological stance. Data 1: Protest in motion amid poor security (The Jakarta Post, Monday, September 30, 2013) In data 1, the situation is three days before APEC summit. APEC was held in Bali that got negative response from the activists and students Hundreds of activists and students came together on Sunday to plan protests against the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in Bali amid signs of heightened security at the venues that will host the powwow of 21 Pacific-rim leaders this week. Activist Ni Luh Gede Yastini from the Bali Legal Aid Foundation, confirmed that hundreds of activists from more than 30 local and international non-governmental organizations under the Indonesian People's Alliance would carry out protests against the summit. They had not been determined because they were aware that security forces could possibly block the moves as they could be considered a disturbance to the summit. In addition, the alliance will probably raise issues such as the environment, migrant workers, human rights and fair trade. Other issues will also include religious intolerance, unsolved killings of activists, alleged human rights abuses in Papua and foreign occupations of domestic natural resources. Activists reject "the liberalization of investments" which would provide red carpets to foreign businesses to easily exploit Indonesia's natural resources. Dozens of students had already staged a small "anti-APEC" rally outside the Ketapang Port in Banyuwangi, East Java, on Sunday. The port is the gateway for those who travel by land from Java to Bali. (The Jakarta Post) a. Word choice The headline in data 1 is written in simple present tense which omits being of the verb. The headline (3) may read: Protests in motion [is] amid poor security. The omitting being of the verb (is) as the aim to make the headline writing more effective so that it can shows clear, short, and interesting. The headline (3) consists of a subject protest in motion as noun phrase and the complement object amid poor security as prepositional phrase. The word protest means that to the expression strong disagreement with or opposition to something. Protest refers to the act that doing by hundreds activists and students who against APEC summit 2013 in Bali. b. Transitivity The headline in data 1 is written in active sentence which uses relational process. The headline (3) consist of a carrier protest in motion (noun phrase) and attributive amid poor security (prepositional phrase). The omission (is) is classified into relational processes, process of being abstract relations such as have, seem, and be (is), which involve an agent and attributive (e.g. 'You are x'; I have y'). The carrier is protest in motion and the attributive amid poor security. In the other written, it can be said that protest in motion is among poor security. Look at the fraction below: Protest in motion [is] Amid poor security Carrier Process: relational Attributive c. Ideological stance The headline in data 1 is negative side for delegates of APEC, 21 state leaders. In this case, it can unsafe for them. The summit is crucial to discuss economy growth. The headline tries to show protest motion that is done by hundreds activist and student to against APEC summit. Dozens of students had already staged a small "anti-APEC" rally outside the Ketapang Port in Banyuwangi, East Java, on Sunday. The port is the gateway for those who travel by land from Java to Bali. In the text tells who is the doer, the one who against APEC summit. Data 2: No game changers at APEC summit (The Jakarta Post, Wednesday, October 02, 2013) In data 2, Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) officials may drive a hard bargain to produce new tangible trade policies as the bloc's prestigious annual summit kicked off on Tuesday amid perturbing signs in the US economy that, once again, sent jitters across the globe. For the duration of the concluding senior officials meeting (CSOM), which will run from Oct. 1 to 2, officials from the 21 Pacific-rim economies would have to show their commitment to the "Bogor Goals" of free, open trade and investment. Officials expect no "big surprises" in the attempt to progress on the liberalization of trade, but are aware of several contentious issues that have the potential to hurt Indonesia and other emerging economies, if not addressed properly during the negotiations. According to documents obtained by The Jakarta Post, there are five deliverables to be discussed as first priorities of the summit. These include Indonesia's initiative to include crude palm oil (CPO) and natural rubber on the list of environmental goods subject for liberalization. Indonesia, which holds the rotating APEC chairmanship, has several requirements for businesses to use local products for certain industries, such as oil and gas. Economist Sri Adiningsih of Gadjah Mada University's APEC study center said Indonesia should focus on taking advantage of existing commitments rather than trying to push for a new agenda. While the summit is likely to produce few benefits for domestic interest, it is crucial to help facilitate other APEC priorities such as commitments to help avoid another round of impasse in the upcoming World Trade Organization (WTO) ministerial conference in December in Bali. APEC accounts for about 55 percent of the world's gross domestic product (GDP), some 44 percent of global trade and 40 percent of the world's population (The Jakarta Post). a. Word choice The headline in data 1 is written in full clause, consists of a subject no game (noun phrase), a verb changers (infinitive +s) and an complement at APEC summit. No classified in adverb, it means that used with a following adjective to imply a meaning expressed by the opposite positive statement, game (common noun) means a physical or mental activity or contest that has rules and that people do for pleasure, the verb changers means to replace with another. The verb summit means international meeting; a meeting or series of meetings between the leaders of two or more governments, so that the complement at APEC summit means that International organization meeting. b. Transitivity The headline in data 1 is written in active sentence. According to SFL: Transitivity, the process of the sentence is intransitive action which consists of only one participant no game, the actional verb changers which is intransitive verb which does not need object and circumstance at APEC summit, an additional information of the purpose of the action. The processes of doing in the physical world are shown in material processes that show the power of the doer of doing something to the real world, unlike mental processes which are abstract. Look at fraction below: No game Changers At APEC summit Actor Process: material Circumstance: purpose c. Ideological Stance The headline in data 6 is positive toward APEC. the word no as the negation of the verb game. APEC is the International organization. In this case no game can be changers in this International meeting. Indonesia no longer pushes for green goods. Another summit priority, is the US initiative to discuss barriers to trade, which includes opposition against local-content requirements implemented by several APEC members, including Indonesia. Indonesia, which holds the rotating APEC chairmanship, has several requirements for businesses to use local products for certain industries, such as oil and gas. While the summit is likely to produce few benefits for domestic interest, it is crucial to help facilitate other APEC priorities such as commitments to help avoid another round of impasse in the upcoming World Trade Organization (WTO) ministerial conference in December in Bali. The headline is definitely positive toward APEC. To know furthermore of the information, the study classified the analysis of the headline in the table below. No Headlines Word Choice NP FC Process Ideology 1. Competitive SMEs 'crucial' to APEC's growth Compe-titive SMEs - P Relational process Positive 2. Nusa Dua closed for tourists during APEC Nusa dua - P Relational process Positive 3. Protest in motion amid poor security Protests - P Relational process Negative 4. SBY to have bilateral talks with Obama in Bali SBY - P Verbal process Positive 5. APEC agrees to joint efforts to develop renewable energy APEC - P Material process Negative 6. No game changers at APEC summit No game - P Material process Positive 7. RI hopes for deal on rubber shattered RI - P Mental process Negative 8. Challengers force APEC to adjust Challen-gers - P Material process Positive 9 Giants exert clout at APEC Giants - Material process Negative 10 APEC vows to avoid mishaps APEC - Material process Positive Table 1. Word Choice, Transitivity, and Ideology *Note: NP= (Noun Phrase); FC= (Full Clause) Discussions Table 1 the word choice, transitivity and ideology of the headlines into who is the actor or doer, writing headlines, involving in which process, in the end of the analysis it can conclude that what the ideology inside of headlines. First is classified into who is the doer in that event which can show the subject or the doer regularly appear in headline newspaper. Here are the headlines which actors are APEC, it shows in headline in data 5 and data 10. Data 5: APEC agrees to joint efforts to develop renewable energy Data 6: APEC vows to avoid mishap APEC is classified in proper noun which is abbreviation from Asia Pacific Economy Cooperation. Proper noun is a word which is the name of person (e.g. Lisa, John, Marry, etc), a place (e.g. Surabaya, California, Sydney, etc.), an institution (State University of Surabaya, Oxford University, etc.), etc. And it is written with a Capital Letter wherever its located in a sentence. In these headline, the proper noun APEC refers to the International economy meeting summit. The member of APEC consist of Australia, Canada, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, United States, Chinese Taipei, Hongkong, China, Mexico, Papua New Guinea, Chile, Peru, Russia, Vietnam. Meanwhile, APEC as the doer or participants above, it is essentially useful to quantify the types of clause and verb processes used and their distribution across sampled newspaper. The table above is clearly that shows the principle difference between the headline: the ratio of noun phrase (NP) headlines to choose containing full clause (FC). All the headlines APEC summit 2013 in Bali are written in full clause, no one of the headline is written in noun phrase. Full clause consist of minimal one subject and one verb. The headline is written in full clause as the aim to give emphasize the actor or the doer who does the action towards the goal, not only states the noun phrase of the doer, the goal or the result that the doer does. Furthermore, classifying into processes that the processes which have four main verb processes across the headline. The process has four type which consist of material process, verbal process, mental process, and relational process. Look at the headlines below: Data 1: Competitive smes 'crucial' to APEC Data 2: Nusa dua closed for tourists during APEC Data 3: Protest in motion amid poor security The example of headlines above is classified in relational process which can show the typically retain the source responsible for the statement. The headlines is written in shorter, punchier headlines, and the omission of be (is, am, are) as the aim to make effectiveness in headline writing is classifies into relational process, process of being in the world abstract relations. According SFL: Transitivity, the abstract relationships generally finds between two participants associated with the process is regarded, however it is different from material process, a participant does not influence the other participant in a physical sense. The omission (is) is classified into relational processes, process of being abstract relations such as have, seem, and be (is), which involve an agent and attributive (e.g. 'You are x'; I have y'). The verbal process is used in this headline: Data 4: SBY to have bilateral talks with Obama in Bali The word talks is classified in verbal processes, a process of saying such as speaking, shouting, or singing. The word "talk" support of (Halliday 1994: 107) that the verbal process expresses the relationship between ideas constructed in human consciousness and the ideas enacted in the form of language. A verbal process is the process of saying, and it exists on the borderline between mental and relational processes. The participants roles associated with verbalization processes are the sayer, the individual who is speaking and that of the target, the addressee to whom the process is directed. This may be added with verbiage, that which is said. The mental process is used in this headline: Data 7: RI hopes for deal on CPO rubber shattered. From the headline in data 7, it can be shown that the headline includes Mental processes. That is the fact that theory from (Halliday, 1994: 117) that Mental processes are "internalized" processes which exists in processes of doing and speaking. The example are such as thinking, dreaming, and deciding. Mental process by encode the meaning of feeling or thinking. Mental process verbs can be subcategorized into three types; Cognition (verbs of thinking, knowing, understanding), Affection (verbs of liking, loving, fearing, heating), and Perception (verbs of seeing, hearing). The word "hopes" includes in dreaming as the article of the text tells that RI has dream or hopes to lift barriers to the trade in Crude Palm Oil (CPO). The material process is used in this headline below: Data 5: APEC agrees to joint efforts to develop renewable energy Data 6: No game changers at APEC summit Data 8: Challenges force APEC to adjust Data 9: Giants exert clout at APEC Data 10: APEC vows to avoid mishap According SFL: Transitivity, the headlines above belongs to the material process, processes of doing in the physical world. Material processes have two inherent participants involved in them. The first of these Actors, which is an obligatory element and expresses the doer of the process. The second is the Goal, which is an optional element and expresses the doer of the process. In addition to these two inherent participant roles, there is an extra element called Circumstance, which provides additional information on the "when, where, how, and why" of the process. Furthermore, the circumstance associated with the process also contribute to an ideological representation of the APEC summit. In the sampled headlines, the circumstance regularly exists in prepositional phrase which can be used to modify both noun and verb phrases, providing extra details on the time, place or the manner in which the action described in the process. They are identified by a preposition (e.g. 'in', 'of', 'on', 'for', 'to', 'with', 'as' etc). The use of preposition in each of these headlines is highly ideological. In each case, the prepositional phrase is underlined: Competitive smes 'crucial' to APEC Challenges force APEC to adjust The reporters or the publication is most often positive toward APEC. The headlines state APEC as the doer which has dominate power which does the actions towards the goal. It can be shown of 10 headline that the headlines writer does not want to cover or hide the subjects or the doers or the actions even the circumstances of the events. Actually, it is the fact that the way of reporting is very ideological since wants the readers to be clear on who is the doer is, the action and the effected entity. The writer wants the readers have the same thinks. Thus, most of the sample headlines have positive ideology towards APEC. Besides APEC, to increase the economy of 21 economies in Asia Pacific, there is Small and Medium Enterprises to unleash economic potential and drive growth. Smes is very useful to the advancement of the ASEAN community and the global community in 2020. Most of all the 21 APEC leaders had proposed bilateral meetings with Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono as the president of Indonesia. APEC was held in Indonesia has positive towards Indonesia so that's way the ideological stance is shown of the headline writer, in this case the editor of The Jakarta Post who represents the ideological stance of the institution. The Jakarta Post newspaper is daily English newspaper in Indonesia has budget of selection news which is showed for world so that people in the world will know Indonesia actually with reading The Jakarta Post newspaper. It is built in 1982 as the collaboration between four Indonesian media under the demanding of minister of information Ali Moertopo and politician Mr. Jusuf Wanandi, who represented the government-backed Golkar newspaper Suara Karya. Minister Moertopo mentioned the possibility of publishing an English-language newspaper of the highest editorial quality. The Jakarta Post newspaper is more than a decade of opening up the economy to the global community but more importantly one that would be able to provide an Indonesian perspective to counter the highly unbalanced Western-dominated global traffic of news and views. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION Conclusion The data consist of 10 headlines about news event of APEC. The study finds word choice in headlines that the headlines are written in simple present tense that is shown the immediately past event. The headlines that consist of 10 headlines are written by full clause (FC) form which consist of minimal a subject and a verb. The subject or the doer of the headlines are mostly APEC which can be seen that the focus of news reporting is APEC. From the subject or the doer of headlines, APEC is shown as active doer that has dominance power in APEC news event that APEC summit 2013 in Nusa dua, Bali. The most dominance verbs are mostly infinitive+s with singular subject that consist of such as the verbs talks, efforts, changers, hopes, vows. From the verbs are describe the active action for the power relation in the doer and the goal. Furthermore, the process of the verbs are mostly material process which have two inherent participant involved in them. According SFL: Transitivity material process is process of doing in the physical world. There are some omission in headlines as the aim of the writing of headlines more effective. The circumstance in the headlines are written by noun phrase and verb phrases, supplying extra details on the time, place or the manner in which the action described in the process. They are identified by a preposition (e.g. 'in', 'of', 'on', 'for', 'to', 'with', 'as' etc). The use of preposition in each of these headlines is highly ideological which concluded of the analysis in headlines that the study has positive appreciation, feeling, and judgment with APEC summit 2013 in Bali. APEC is mostly mentioned as the actor or the doer in the headlines that has positive verbs such as vows, talks, hopes, changers. From those verb that is seen dominance power in actor for the goal. Suggestion The study analyzes the headlines in The Jakarta Post newspaper which is as the object of study. The headlines are elaborated based on the word choice features, transitivity, and the end of the analysis can be investigated the ideological distance. It can be shown by the object of sentence in headlines. For the future, the study hopes the deeper investigation to have a more critical analysis and useful for studying critical analysis to be better. REFERENCES Brown, Gillian and Yule, George. 1983. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Cook, Guy. 1992. Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Crystal, David. 1997. Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics 4th Edition. United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishers. Ltd. Fowler, R. 1991. Critical Linguistics. In: Halmkjaer, K. (ed.), The Linguistic Encyclopedia. London/ New York: Routledge. 89-93. Fairclough, Norman. 1989. Language and Power. Essex: Longman Group Ltd. Fairclough, N, L. 1995a. Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. Harlow, England: Longman. Fairclough, N, L. 1995b. Media Discourse. London: Edward Arnold. Halliday, M. A. K. 1994. An Intoduction to Functional Grammar. 2nd Edition. London: Edward Arnold. Kirana, Dhinuk Puspita. 2009. Critical Discourse Analysis of the Headlines in The Jakarta PostReporting Invasion in Gaza. Unesa: Unpublished Kress, G. and Hodge, B. 1979. Language as Ideology. London: Routledge. Mills, Sara. Feminist Stylistics. 1995. USA and Canada: Routledge. Pasha, Talaat. (2011). Islamists in The Headlines: Critical Discourse Analysis of The Representation of The Muslim Brotherhood In Egyption Newspapers. The University of Utah. Richardson, E. John. 2007. Analyzing Newspaper. An Approach from Critical Discourse Analysis. New York: Palgrave MacMillan. Taiwo, Rotimi. 2007. Language, Ideology and Power Relation in Nigerian Newspaper Headlines, from(www.noblewords.biz/images/Taiwo2.pdf). Taiwo, Rotimi. 2004. "Speech as Headline in Nigerian Newspaper", in Segun Awonusi and E. A. Babalola, eds The Domestication of English in Nigeria. (Lagos: University of Lagos Press 323-325), from (www.noblewords.biz/images/Taiwo1.pdf) Van Djik, T. A. 1993. Elite Discourse and Racism. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Van Djik, T. A. 1998. News as Discourse. (Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.
This paper investigates the take-up rate or claim-waiting period rate of the unemployed under the South African Unemployment Insurance Fund (UIF) system. The goal is to identify disincentive effects that income replacement rates (IRR) and accumulated credits may have on the claimant's behavior in terms of their claim waiting period rate (or how quickly they apply for UIF benefits). Utilizing nonparametric and semi-parametric estimation techniques, we find that there is little evidence, if any, for job disincentives or moral hazard problems. More specifically, the majority of claimants that are quickest to claim the UIF benefits are those who have worked continuously for at least four years and accumulated the maximum allowable amount of credits. The authors also note that claimants' waiting periods are indifferent with regard to levels of income replacements yet extremely sensitive to the amount of credits accumulated. Ultimately, the recipients of the UIF benefits do not rely heavily on the replacement incomes and prefer waiting longer for employment opportunities as opposed to exhausting their accumulated credits. The semi-parametric Cox's Proportional Hazard (PH) model confirms that there is a positive relationship between the claimant's accumulation of credits and the associated take-up rate of the UIF.
This paper surveys empirically the broad features of trade policy in goods for 31 major economies that collectively represented 83 percent of the world's population and 91 percent of the world's GDP in 2013. It addresses the following five questions: Do some countries have more liberal trading regimes than others? Within countries, which industries receive the most import protection? How do trade policies change over time? Do countries discriminate among their trading partners when setting trade policy? Finally, how liberalized is world trade? The analysis documents the extent of cross-sectional heterogeneity in applied commercial policy across countries, their economic sectors, and their trading partners, over time. It concludes that substantial trade policy barriers remain as an important feature of the world economy.
