North Korea, amid global warnings and hard-hitting criticism, launched a rocket from the western coast, showing its might and following what it had pronounced a few days earlier.

As reported earlier, North Korea was preparing to launch a missile, and recently Pyongyang turned that declaration into reality by launching a missile into orbit. This rattling-down action was exercised when North Korea launched a rocket named “Unha” from Sohae launch pad located in the North West of Pyongyang.

According to the BBC, “The launch of the second version of our Kwangmyongsong-3 (Unha-3) satellite from the Sohae Space Centre … on December 12 was successful” the state news agency KCNA said. “The Satellite has entered the orbit as planned.”

North Korean state media termed the launch as a “ground-breaking” mission that met the “last instructions” of Pyongyang’s late leader.

According to the Guardian, North American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD), said “ the three-stage Unha rocket had taken its expected southerly course, with its first stage falling into the Yellow Sea west of South Korea and the second landing in the sea east of the Philippines.”

According to Zee News “The United Nations Security Council on Wednesday condemned North Korea for launching a long-range rocket in defiance of UN resolutions.”

North Korea is currently banned from ballistic missile testing as per the UN resolution that was passed in the year 2009 following a second nuclear test. Criticism started flowing in from all corners of the globe over North Korean action that strongly ignored UN Resolutions. Furthermore, it can be said it’s an act that gathered huge condemnation and attention since almost all neighboring countries were displeased with it.

U.S Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice said “No matter how the North Koreans choose to describe the launch it violates two council resolutions and shows that country is determined to pursue its ballistic missile program without regard for its international obligations.”

Britain’s foreign secretary William Hague said “I strongly condemn the satellite launch today. The UK government would summon the North Korean ambassador in London,” he added, “This provocative act will increase tension in the region. I deplore the fact that (North Korea) has chosen to prioritize this launch over improving the livelihoods of its people.”

There has been a war of accusations and defiance between North Korea and the world at large over the country’s ambitions of nuclear programs and ballistic missile technology over many years.

Following the launch, a statement was issued by UN Secretary-General that reads “The Secretary General has been urging the leadership in Pyongyang not to carry out such a launch and instead to build confidence with its neighbours while taking steps to improve the lives of its people.” It further said “the Secretary-General is concerned about the negative consequences that this provocative act may have on peace and stability in the region.”

The North Korean official KCNA news agency said that Foreign ministry spokesman expressed views like this: “No matter what others say, we will continue to launch satellites and thus actively contribute to the economic construction and improvement of people’s living standard.”

On the contrary there has been a growing reluctance by North Korea over the international community. Its objections finally surfaced with the launch of the rocket.

The article North Korean Pronouncement Now a Reality appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

The tower that houses Big Ben at the Palace of Westminster is likely to be renamed in honor of Queen Elizabeth II after a majority of the Members of Parliament (MPs) gave their backing to the change.

The proposal was first made by Tobias Ellwood, a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Foreign Office. He tabled an Early Day Motion requesting that the clock tower be renamed the Elizabeth Tower in honor of the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee.

“Commemorating an iconic landmark as famous as Parliament is indeed a truly exceptional tribute and I am grateful that the majority of MPs believe the Queen deserves such an outstanding accolade,” he said.

“It therefore seems entirely appropriate for Parliament to pay tribute to Her Majesty with a similar honor, and in symmetry, to that bestowed upon Queen Victoria, by dedicating part of the iconic Parliamentary estate in her name,” he continued.

Forty MPs signed their names to the motion, and 331 MPs signed a formal letter of support, including the leaders of the three major parties. Prime Minister David Cameron said that “it is great news that so many MPs from across the House are backing what would be a fitting tribute to the Queen. I hope it will now move ahead.”

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said that “the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee is an occasion that the whole country is keen to celebrate, and Members of Parliament are no exception. I hope the House applies [to Buckingham Palace] to name this historic tower after Her Majesty.”

Echoing the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, Labour Party leader Ed Miliband said that “Queen Elizabeth has dedicated herself tirelessly and constantly to the people of Britain and the entire Commonwealth. Parliament has agreed that this is a fitting tribute to her life of service and I hope it can be confirmed as soon as possible.”

In addition to the party leaders, the proposal has received the backing of Theresa May, the Home Secretary; William Hague, the Foreign Secretary; Iain Duncan Smith, the Work and Pensions Secretary; and Danny Alexander, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. They are joined by other prominent MPs, including former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, former Home Secretary David Blunkett, and Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls.

The honor mirrors that given to Queen Victoria when she celebrated her Diamond Jubilee in 1897. The King’s Tower which stood at the southwest end of the Palace of Westminster was renamed the Victoria Tower.

The House of Commons Commission, which is responsible for Parliament’s administrative affairs, will meet in a few weeks’ time, at which point it is likely to approve the proposal in light of the strength of cross-party support. Once the commission has given its stamp of approval, the proposal will be formally presented to Buckingham Palace. If the Queen agrees, a renaming ceremony would be held, which she would likely attend.

The article British MPs Want to Rename Big Ben in Honor of the Queen appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

In an interview with the BBC, Aung San Suu Kyi, Burma’s democracy campaigner and Nobel peace laureate, said she believes Burma will hold democratic elections “in my life time”. She is the most prominent Burmese opposition politician and general secretary of the National League for Democracy.

Suu Kyi has been revered as a symbol for the democratization of Burma, an icon for the removal of injustice, and has been fighting for political reforms for more than 20 years. In an exclusive interview with the BBC, she said she is hopeful about democratic elections in Burma but was unsure when would take place.

Recently, Aung San Suu Kyi formally registered her National League for Democracy (NLD) as a political party and last week government approved NLD as political party and to run in the upcoming by-elections.

The year 2011 was significant to the people of Burma as a year of reforms and transformation in the economic and political as well as administrative sphere. One of the most magnanimous and unparalleled action taken towards democracy and freedom by the military-backed Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP) has been the release of Suu Kyi from house arrest. In November 2010, the first polls in a period of 20 years were held, replacing military rule with a military-backed nominally civilian government.

To Associated Press, Aung San Suu Kyi said that she is cautiously optimistic about the progress to be made. She cautioned that democratic reforms started by the nominally civilian government are unstoppable. Nevertheless, she clearly reminded the West not to get carried away with these reforms, as Burma’s military still hold considerable power to derail democratic efforts.

Burma’s civilian government has initiated a series of reforms, including the establishment of a national human rights commission, deployment of new labor laws, initiating dialogue with the pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi, and relaxation of press censorship and regulation of currency practices.

British Foreign Secretary William Hague recently visited Burma, a British first since 1955. Mr. Hague said to the BBC that the momentum for change in Burma is “real.” Mr. Hague further said, “This is a very exciting time because there is a chance that what she and her colleagues have hoped and longed for so long will actually take place in this country.”

Democracy has been hailed as a constructive and instrumental source of economic and political freedom around the world. Its effect on the economy, however, should not be the main focus, rather, democracy plays a key role in human life and freedoms. With hope unshaken and a determination in fight for democracy, Burma may have a real chance at removing itself from the shackles of military rule.

The article Burma On the Path to Democracy? appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Barack Obama has been challenged this week. John Boehner, leader of the House of Representatives, wrote to the dear leader claiming that under the 1973 War Powers Act, his decision to authorize US military action in Libya without consulting congress was illegal under US law. The White House swiftly replied, stating that military action in Libya was not sufficiently serious that it necessitated congressional approval.

There is much to say merely on this footnote of the story. We might well debate the separation of powers, or the rights of the commander-in-chief, deep into the night. However, there is a much more important point to make, and one that Boehner’s challenge conveniently prompts. The war in Libya is undoubtedly illegal, regardless of US law.

Let’s begin with a little recent history. On March 18^th 2011, President Obama delivered a speech announcing a NATO military operation in Libya, and the imposition of a no-fly zone. The media was almost unilaterally supportive, as it has remained ever since. Later that same day, Mark Mardell (BBC North America correspondent) sycophantically praised this new “Obama doctrine”, which entailed “acting within limits, leading only as a first among equals”.

“Barack Obama has been morbidly belligerent from the very first day he took power.”

To argue that Mardell’s assessment proved to be mistaken would be to miss the point, because even the limited measures announced on March 18^th were transparently illegal (UN Security Council resolution 1973 authorized an internationally organized no-fly zone, not a NATO imposed one), and there was absolutely nothing ‘new’ about this facet of Obama foreign policy. Barack Obama has been morbidly belligerent from the very first day he took power. Within 12 hours of stepping into the elliptic office, he opted to order unmanned drone strikes in Pakistan – a precedent he has continued. George Bush authorized drone attacks in Pakistan a total of 45 times in his whole second term; just within Obama’s first year, he sent 53. The drone attacks themselves constitute a serious war crime, having killed at least 1,500 civilians and a mere handful of supposed ‘militants’. Obama has been carrying out an illegal bombing campaign in Yemen for the past two years, and still maintains the war in Afghanistan.

The White House response to Boehner openly claimed that the Libyan operation was not a war, but a mission to remove Muammar Gaddafi from power. Sickeningly, this script has become familiar to the point of tediousness. The US, UK or NATO announce ‘an intervention’, or a ‘humanitarian campaign’. The campaign, it is said, will be completely different from all previous wars. Strikes will be ‘targeted’, ‘collateral damage’ will be negligible, and of course just as the British government said in 1914, it will be so swift that it’ll all be over in a couple of months. Then the mission changes. A campaign that was authorized by UNSC resolution 1973 only to protect civilians in Benghazi by stopping Gaddafi’s airforce becomes a NATO “mission to remove Muammar Gaddafi from power”. According to any interpretation of Just War theory, this alone flagrantly disregards international law. Furthermore, the repeated air strikes on Gaddafi’s compound (and home) have made it absolutely clear that NATO are attempting to kill him. Whatever one thinks of the ‘intervention’ in Libya, we must accept that it is yet another illegal war.

Where does it go from here? On June 15^th UK armed forces chief General Sir David Richards spoke to relieve fears that Britain would be unable to maintain its part in the war: “We can sustain this operation as long as we choose to” he confirmed, “I am absolutely clear on that”. His statement will no doubt come as a salve to British Foreign Secretary William Hague, who has stated that the UK is in Libya “for the long haul”.

This is revealing in itself. Regardless of what happens, or of what the current Libyan leadership does, NATO has confirmed that it will be there “for the long haul”. Saif al-Islam Gaddafi announced on the 16^th of June that his father Muammar was willing to hold elections in Libya (monitored by the international community). NATO, I’m sure, will ignore this statement. The goal was never the promotion of democracy in Libya, or the protection of civilians, nor was it – I suspect – even “regime change”. The goal is simply ‘to be’ in Libya. Another oil rich Arab nation; another illegal war.

The article Libya, Another Illegal War appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

RATKO MLADIC has been arrested. Here’s what did not happen: a team of 79 members of the Bosnian special forces – on the orders of the Bosnian government – did not helicopter into Serbia, without the permission or knowledge of the Serbian government, and execute him with a bullet to the head. That’s what did not happen.

There are some very good reasons why that did not happen. The first is that it would not only have been illegal, but detrimental to the very concept of law. The second is that it would have damaged an already tender relationship between Bosnia and Serbia, thus potentially risking the lives of many innocent people. The third is that it would have been immoral for a government to execute a man without trial, against the principle of universal human rights (particularly as expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights articles 10 and 11). The fourth is, very simply, that the United States was not involved. When the United States assassinated Osama Bin Laden on May 1st, this is exactly what happened.

Ratko Mladic was allegedly responsible for war crimes just as serious as Bin Laden’s. He was a leading figure of the Bosnian Serb army during the 1992-95 Bosnian war, and in particular he is suspected of having been directly responsible for the Srebrenica massacre of 7,500 Muslim men in July 1995. He will be tried in The Hague.

Living, as I do, in London, I must ask what the UK government has to say about this. Foreign Secretary William Hague, commenting on the arrest, said that this ‘historic moment” would bring “belated justice for [Mladic's] victims”. I must also ask why exactly William Hague’s opinions on justice have changed so radically in the past month. After the assassination of Osama Bin Laden, Mr Hague “congratulated” the United States, praising President Obama’s proclamation that “justice has been done”. Needless to say, this is fundamental hypocrisy. Either justice lies in cold blooded illegal state assassination, or it lies in arrest and trial.

“If we believe in the most basic of moral principles, we will surely conclude that assassinating suspected criminals without trial is an abrogation of universal human rights, and therefore unconscionable.”

Geoffrey Robertson QC, following the May 1st assassination, made the very modest point that the West correctly “insisted upon judgement at Nuremberg” for the Nazi leadership, and that this has “confounded Holocaust-deniers ever since”. His conclusion on Bin Laden’s assassination is rather more convincing than Mr. Hague’s: “it is absurd to claim that justice has been done”.

If we believe in the most basic of moral principles, we will surely conclude that assassinating suspected criminals without trial is an abrogation of universal human rights, and therefore unconscionable. The arrest of Mladic is clearly a victory for international justice. Yet we must also ask why it is that individuals responsible for crimes just as heinous as Ratko Mladic and Osama Bin Laden are given a completely free pass. Ariel Sharon, the former Israeli general and Prime Minister from 2001-2006, is strongly suspected of responsibility for the 1973 Yom-Kippur war, and the massacre of 3,500 Palestinians in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. Rifaat al-Assad, the man directly responsible for the murder of 20,000 Sunni Muslims during the Hama Massacre of 1982, is currently living in Mayfair. Those who have denied Serbia membership of the EU on the basis of its failure to capture Mladic, have been unwittingly calling for the expulsion of the United Kingdom. Quite clearly, our own leadership does not believe in the most basic of moral principles.

The article On Tyrants and Trials, Ratko Mladic & Osama Bin Laden appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.