Posted on 09/20/2001 3:15:16 PM PDT by Ragtime Cowgirl
Tough Sanctions Imposed on Taliban Government Split UN
By Barbara Crossette
New York Times
December 20, 2000
Led by the United States and Russia, the Security Council imposed harsh new sanctions on the Taliban government of Afghanistan today, leaving the United Nations profoundly split over the human and political damage the measures could inflict on one of the world's poorest nations. The vote in the 15-member Council was 13 for the embargo, with China and Malaysia abstaining.
At a year-end news conference, Secretary General Kofi Annan expressed his barely concealed displeasure at the move, which was also opposed by his special envoy trying to start peace negotiations between the Taliban and the remnants of an opposition army fighting in a corner of the country. United Nations relief officials working in Afghanistan have been unusually public in their criticism. Private agencies also lobbied the Council against taking this step. "It is not going to facilitate our peace efforts, nor is it going to facilitate our humanitarian work," Mr. Annan said of the Security Council action. "I think we had given adequate indications of that to the Council. But the decision belongs to the Council and of course, once they take the decision, we have to adapt and take the necessary measures that are required."
Today, the United Nations removed all its remaining relief workers from the country, fearing a backlash from the Taliban, who will be almost completely isolated diplomatically when the resolution takes effect in 30 days, a grace period during which the Taliban could avoid sanctions by meeting the Council's demands. Air links will be cut and an arms and military training embargo will be imposed only on the Taliban, not their armed opposition, which is supplied by Russia, Iran and India. All assets belonging to Osama bin Laden, who is thought to be living in Afghanistan, will be ordered frozen around the world.
The United States has been demanding Mr. bin Laden's expulsion from Afghanistan to stand trial for masterminding explosions at American Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. The new sanctions imposed today are linked to the refusal of the Taliban to meet that demand sanctions a year ago. For Russia, the Taliban are assumed to be behind an Islamic rebellion in Chechnya.
Russian and American pressure on Security Council members and some officials in the United Nations secretariat has been intense, diplomats said. Two weeks ago, as the sanctions resolution was circulating, the Russian representative complained to Deputy Secretary General Louise Frechette that the coordinator of relief work in Afghanistan, Erick de Mul of the Netherlands, was undermining the anti-Taliban campaign by drawing attention to what he believed would be the adverse effects of the tightened embargo on ordinary Afghans, already among the poorest people in the world.
United Nations officials have warned that as many as a million Afghans could face starvation in coming months because of a drought and continued civil war.
Ambassador Nancy Soderberg, speaking for the United States today, said that the Security Council was taking "a strong stand against terrorism." She described Mr. bin Laden as "the world's most wanted terrorist."
"The Taliban cannot continue to flout the will of the international community and support and shelter terrorists without repercussions," she said in the Council following the vote. "As long as the Taliban continues to harbor terrorists, in particular Osama bin Laden, and to promote terrorism, it remains a threat to international peace and security.
Clinton knew this would anger not only the Taliban, but their terrorist pals across the world. His own State Dept. report on terrorism (see above links) shows clearly that the Clinton administration had knowledge of the size and scope of the international terrorist threat....complete with weapons, locations, history of actions of various cells, etc. The UN understood the danger...they pulled their own people out the same day, Dec. 20th, the new threat was issued.
On Dec. 18th, 2000, the electoral college elected President Bush, ending any debate. On Dec. 19th, Clinton went to the UN to push for tougher sanctions on our most deadly enemy. On Dec. 20th, the UN reluctantly issued the threat with the 30 day grace period....to go into effect Jan. 20th, 2001 - President Bush's inaugeration day.
Why would Clinton invite both Barak and Arafat to the White House those last days and encourage them both to make concessions that angered each and turned their people against them at home?
Why did the press report on the pardons and the vandalism, but neglect to investigate the most damaging actions of the departing President?
Why would Clinton leave so many landmines for the new President, knowing that our national security was at stake?
WH Press Briefing, Jan. 12, 2001, reporter questioned sanction date....begins Jan. 19th, 2001 (inaugeration EVE, not day....sorry).
Original NY Times story.
Original UN sanctions imposed Oct. 99.
Thanks for the "jog the memory" bump!
Seriesly, though...it is no small thing, imho, that Clinton intentionally (imho) incited Taliban wrath as he left the White House. He knew full well how his final actions would be received by our enemies.
Two more to share with the accusers of the Bush Administration re. 911, terrorism, truthtelling: (link, also now 'broken'):
*
(July, '99) The Boston Globe, on the 25th, said, "The 6-year-old boy watched intently as his father dusted off his favorite possession, a leather-bound scrapbook of Osama bin Laden, pausing at a photo of the Saudi dissident with a semiautomatic rifle tucked in the folds of his trademark white robe. ''Osama!'' his son squealed excitedly. ''That's me!'' The boy, whose name was changed to Osama last year, is one of hundreds of Pakistani children named for bin Laden since Aug. 20, 1998 - the day the United States launched missile strikes against alleged terrorist camps run by the Saudi millionaire in eastern Afghanistan. The attack sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. But the response was particularly heated in Pakistan, which sends thousands of Islamic guerrillas to similar training camps in Afghanistan. ''I love his bravery and gallantry,'' the boy's father, Niaz Ali Salar, said of bin Laden. ''He boosted the morale of Muslims throughout the world.'' The local leader of the radical Barelvi sect of Muslims, Salar said he hoped his son would ''live up to his name'' and lead the war against ''the enemies of Islam.'' In Mardan, a crumbling tobacco center 75 miles east of the Afghan border, Islamic priests deliver diatribes against ''evil America'' during Friday afternoon prayers.
In Pakistan, few buy Washington's vilification of bin Laden, whom it accuses of masterminding the Aug. 7, 1998, bombings of two US embassies in east Africa and several other terrorist attacks. ''He's a man on the run, whose only friends are the Taliban. How can he be a threat to the world's most powerful nation?'' said Sahib Zada Khalid Jan Binuri, head of Pakistan's most influential Islamic seminary. ''It's all spin control. If America tells me, `You are a terrorist,' what can I say?''
(character counts in a US President who's fighting evildoers!)
Creators Syndicate - www.creators.com 12/27/98 L. Brent Bozell III: "Bill Clinton's decision to unleash the dogs of war as he tip-toes on the precipice of impeachment conjures up a vision of White House defense lawyer Greg Craig appearing before Congress declaring: "The President's military action was evasive, incomplete, misleading, even maddening - but it's not impeachable." There's no dodging the suspicion that Clinton is seeking to save his bacon by dropping some megatonnage on Saddam Hussein. After all, it's just what he did when he bombed Osama bin Laden's alleged facilities in Sudan and Afghanistan this summer. Both actions were launched with little or no consultation with Congress, and with too little consultation with the service chiefs at the Pentagon. Oh my, how the talking heads like Alan Dershowitz and NBC anchor-in-training Brian Williams are going nuts over that suggestion. How vile! How unpatriotic! What hypocrites. How about the Democrats? In 1983, Clinton defender John Conyers called for Reagan's impeachment for invading Grenada. (For good measure, he earlier called for impeachment over the Gipper's alleged "incompetence" in dealing with unemployment.) In 1984, as he ran for President, and again in 1986, Jesse Jackson suggested Reagan should be subject to an impeachment probe over U.S. actions in Nicaragua. Rep. Henry Gonzalez called for impeachment in 1983 over Grenada and again in 1987 over Iran-Contra. The National Organization for Women and the American Civil Liberties Union advocated impeaching Reagan in 1987. The major media didn't thump the tub for impeachment, but did suggest forcefully that Reagan's actions were even worse than the Watergate offenses that got Richard Nixon impeached. For example, in the January 9, 1984 New York Times, then-Senior Editor John B. Oakes proclaimed: "President Reagan's consistent elevation of militarism over diplomacy creates a clear and present danger to the internal and external security of the United States. Presidents have been impeached for less." Oakes wasn't alone at the Times. On December 12, 1986, columnist Tom Wicker offered an echo: "Mr. Reagan probably won't be impeached or forced to resign - though the offenses resulting from his policy, or his somnolence on the job, are more serious than any charge the House Judiciary Committee approved against Mr. Nixon.".So where are these noble folks today? Have you noticed how the words "War Powers Act" haven't been invoked much by the liberal media in the last, oh, six years, now that a President they favor is lobbing the bombs? Where are the calls for impeachment from John Conyers and Jesse Jackson? Where are the charges of abuse of power from the editorial pages of The New York Times and The Washington Post? Nothing but silence. Stinking dead silence.."
Does anyone else wonder why the Clinton administration chose Dec. 20, 2000 to give Osama another 30 day ultimatum? He left so many parting gifts for the new President.
I do believe he is capable of willfully planning and executing a series of parting gifts to hamper and hurt George W. Bush and his Presidency.
BTTT!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.