<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d14058325\x26blogName\x3dChiswickite++-+formerly+The+Croydonian\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dBLUE\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttp://croydonian.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den_GB\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://croydonian.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d2605630255414466250', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>

What our people at the UN are up to.

Voting with Saudi Arabia, Iran and Sudan and against the US, Canada, Australia and Israel on the question of use natural resources in Judea Samaria.

Can't say that came as a huge surprise, but guess which was the only country that voted against this: "The Committee also had before it a draft on unilateral measures as a means of political and economic coercion against developing countries (document A/C.2/62/L.8), by which the Assembly would urge the international community to adopt urgent and effective measures to eliminate unilateral coercive economic measures against developing countries that were not authorized by relevant United Nations organs or were inconsistent with the principles of international law set forth in the United Nations Charter". Or unilateral sanctions. The US voted against, whereas the UK abstained.


It would appear that we do not engage in independent foreign policy at the UN, but rather go along with whatever the EU's line is:

"The representative of Portugal, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said she had abstained because unilateral economic measures should respect the principles of international law, including the international contractual obligations of the State applying them and the rules of the World Trade Organization, where applicable. Such measures were admissible in certain circumstances in order to fight terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or to uphold respect for human rights, democracy, the rule of law and good governance. The European Union was committed to the use of sanctions as part of an integrated, comprehensive policy approach that should include political dialogue, incentives, conditionality and, as a last resort, coercive measures in line with the United Nations Charter".

Or in other words, sanctions are useful and we will use them when we feel like it but we will not vote on the measure. Pitiful.

Labels:

« Home | Next »
| Next »
| Next »
| Next »
| Next »
| Next »
| Next »
| Next »
| Next »
| Next »

Anonymous grumpy granny said... 2:55 pm

Since when does/did the EU represent the UK and the UN? If we no longer need our permanent mission there we can save quite a lot of cash for the Northern Rock kitty.  



Anonymous grumpy granny said... 4:23 pm

...at the UN... (toffee on my fingers, sorry)  



Blogger Croydonian said... 4:29 pm

I had noticed a while back that UN reports would have 'Portugal, speaking on behalf of the EU' or somesuch appearing rather often. If it cuts down on hot air, reasonable enough, but it does make one wonder to what extent we have an independent foreign policy on a day to day basis. And the EU 27 do seem to vote en bloc.  



» Post a Comment