What Hillary Missed at the NAM Summit

While the Presidents and Heads of States of the Non-Aligned Movement – which counts Afghanistan, Burma, Colombia, Cuba, Indonesia, India, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Nicaragua, Nigeria, North Korea, Pakistan, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Venezuela and Yemen among its 118 active members and Brazil, China and Mexico among its most notable actively participating "observers" – were having their Fifteenth Summit this week in Egypt, our Secretary of State was in Thailand.

Why wasn’t she at NAM Summit XV in Egypt, schmoozing with the heads of state of China, North Korea, Burma, Syria et al?

Well, for one thing she pointedly wasn’t invited.

And, for another, she had other fish to fry.

According to the Washington Post, Anti-Everything-Nuclear "expert" David Albright claims that Western "intelligence agencies" had identified some people in Burma "associated with the Manchongang Trading Corporation," the company that Albright et al claim "provided the critical link" between North Korea and Syria, "acquiring key materials from vendors in China" and "secretly" transferring them to the construction site in Syria near Kibar which the Israelis attacked and destroyed in September of 2007."

Worse, Hillary and her groupies have been for some time "deeply concerned by reports of continuing human rights abuses within Burma, particularly by actions that are attributed to the Burmese military concerning the mistreatment and abuse of young girls."

So, you probably haven’t even heard about the Final Report of the NAM – which, thanks to strong support by China, India and Brazil – assumes increasing importance and the American Hegemony goes the way of the Soviet Union.

China became an observer to NAM in September 1992, when a Chinese governmental delegation, headed by then State Councilor and Foreign Minister Qian Qichen, attended the 10th NAM summit in the Indonesian capital of Jakarta. Since then, China has been a participant at every top NAM meeting, and at this one, the Chinese vice foreign minister reiterated China’s policy in strengthening cooperation with NAM to safeguard world peace, stability and development, particularly in jointly addressing the global financial crisis.

So, what were some of the NAM Final Report zingers?

Well, here are a few;

22.1 "It is incumbent upon all States to defend, preserve and promote the purposes and principles of the UN Charter and the principles of international law, in particular pacific settlement of disputes and the non-use or threat of use of force; and

22.2 "The Movement reiterated the basic principle of the UN Charter that all States shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the UN. The Movement stressed that the UN Charter contains sufficient provisions regarding the use of force to maintain and preserve international peace and security, and that achieving this goal by the Security Council should be strictly done in full conformity with the relevant Charter provisions. Resorting to Chapter VII of the Charter as an umbrella for addressing issues that do not pose a threat to international peace and security must be avoided and in this regard, the Council should fully utilise the relevant Charter provisions, where appropriate, including Chapters VI and VIII. In addition, and consistent with the practice of the UN and international law, as pronounced by the ICJ, Article 51 of the UN Charter is restrictive and should not be re-written or re-interpreted."

The NAM called, once again, for a reorganization of the UN Security Council, both as to membership makeup and to its rules of operation, which have been "interim" for more than 60 years.

And, turning to the legacy of Bonkers Bolton and fellow jihadists against everything "international" –

"In recent years, the Security Council has been too quick to threaten or authorise enforcement action in some cases [involving, for example, Iran] while being silent and inactive in others [involving, for example, Israel]. Furthermore, the Council has been increasingly resorting to Chapter VII of the Charter as an umbrella for addressing issues that do not necessarily pose an immediate threat to international peace and security."

So, what to do? The NAM presidents and heads of states –

"Call on the Council to avoid resorting to Chapter VII of the Charter as an umbrella for addressing issues that do not necessarily pose a threat to international peace and security, and to fully utilise the provisions of other relevant Chapters, where appropriate, including Chapters VI and VIII, before invoking Chapter VII which should be a measure of last resort, if necessary."

As for sanctions imposed on, for example, Iran?

"Oppose attempts through the imposition or prolongation of sanctions or their extension by the Security Council against any State under the pretext or with the aim of achieving the political objectives of one or a few States, rather than in the general interest of the international community."

Okay, how about Israel?

"The Heads of State and Government reiterated their support for the establishment in the Middle East of a zone free of all weapons of mass destruction. As a priority step to this end, they reaffirmed the need for the speedy establishment of a NWFZ in the Middle East in accordance with the Security Council Resolution 487 (1981) and paragraph 14 of the Security Council Resolution 687 (1991) and the relevant General Assembly resolutions adopted by consensus.

"They called upon all parties concerned to take urgent and practical steps towards the fulfilment of the proposal initiated by Iran in 1974 for the establishment of such a zone and, pending its establishment, they demanded on Israel, the only country in the region that has not joined the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) nor declared its intention to do so, to renounce possession of nuclear weapons, to accede to the NPT without delay, to place promptly all its nuclear facilities under IAEA full-scope safeguards according to Security Council Resolution 487 (1981) and to conduct its nuclear related activities in conformity with the non-proliferation regime.

"They called for the earliest implementation of relevant IAEA resolutions on "Application of IAEA Safeguards in the Middle East". They expressed great concern over the acquisition of nuclear capability by Israel which poses a serious and continuing threat to the security of neighbouring and other States, and condemned Israel for continuing to develop and stockpile nuclear arsenals.

"In this context they also condemned the statement made by the Prime Minister of Israel on 11 December 2006, related to the possession of nuclear weapons by Israel. They urged the continued consideration of the issue of Israeli nuclear capabilities in the context of the IAEA, including at the General Conference at its 53rd Session. They were of the view that stability cannot be achieved in a region where massive imbalances in military capabilities are maintained particularly through the possession of nuclear weapons, which allow one party to threaten its neighbours, and the region.

"They further welcomed the initiative by H.E. Mr. Mohammed Hosni Mubarak, President of the Arab Republic of Egypt, on the establishment of a zone free from weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East, and in this context, they took into consideration the draft resolution tabled by the Syrian Arab Republic, on behalf of the Arab Group, before the Security Council on 29 December 2003 on the establishment of a zone free of all weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East. They stressed that necessary steps should be taken in different international fora for the establishment of this zone.

"They also called for the total and complete prohibition of the transfer of all nuclear-related equipment, information, material and facilities, resources or devices and the extension of assistance in the nuclear related scientific or technological fields to Israel. In this regard, they expressed their serious concern over the continuing development whereby Israeli scientists are provided access to the nuclear facilities of one NWS. This development will have potentially serious negative implications on security in the region as well as the reliability of the global non-proliferation regime."

All things considered, as the official representative of the rapidly diminishing American Hegemony, Hillary would probably not have found many heads of state in a schmoozing mood.

Read more by Gordon Prather

Author: Gordon Prather

Physicist James Gordon Prather has served as a policy implementing official for national security-related technical matters in the Federal Energy Agency, the Energy Research and Development Administration, the Department of Energy, the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Department of the Army. Dr. Prather also served as legislative assistant for national security affairs to U.S. Sen. Henry Bellmon, R-Okla. -- ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee and member of the Senate Energy Committee and Appropriations Committee. Dr. Prather had earlier worked as a nuclear weapons physicist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and Sandia National Laboratory in New Mexico.