Showing posts with label Kemal Derviş. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kemal Derviş. Show all posts

Monday, November 7, 2011

Canada Press: Wikileaks cables shows misleading actions by Kemal Dervis and Darshak Shah prevented US Government from the truth in North Korea


VZCZCXYZ0009
OO RUEHWEB  DE RUCNDT #2273/01 3551952 ZNY SSSSS ZZH O 211952Z DEC 06 FM USMISSION USUN NEW YORK TO SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 1003 S E C R E T USUN NEW YORK 002273 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 12/20/2016  TAGS:                 SUBJECT: DEMARCHE DELIVERED:UNDP ACTIVITIES IN NORTH  KOREA/MISLEADING ACTIONS BY UNDP DURING DEMARCHE.    REF: A. STATE 183533    Classified By: Acting Permanent Representative Alejandro D. Wolff   per reasons 1.4 (b) and (d)     1. (S) Summary. Ambassador Wallace met with Kemal Dervis,  Administrator of UNDP, on Tuesday, December 19, to deliver a  demarche regarding UNDP activities in North Korea (DPRK).  Ambassador Wolff was scheduled to deliver the demarche with  Ambassador Wallace, but was unable to attend due to a last  minute meeting of the P-5 on Iran. Mr. Dervis was accompanied  by his Deputy Chief of Staff, Douglas Keh and Mr. Bruce  Jenks, Assistant Administrator and Director of UNDP's Bureau  for Resources and Strategic Partnerships (BRSP). Per reftel,  Ambassador Wallace delivered verbatim the demarche talking  points regarding UNDP's lack of programme oversight, which  has resulted in the counterfeiting of U.S. currency and  unauthorized hard currency transfers of millions of dollars.  Per reftel, Ambassador Wallace requested an immediate audit  and investigation of UNDP activities in the DPRK as well as  copies of previously conducted audits. Mr. Dervis stated his  intention to respond to Mission requests for information by  Thursday, December 21st. End Summary. Comment. USUN has  reason to believe that during the demarche, Mr. Dervis' staff  deliberately obstructed an opportunity for the UNDP  Controller, Mr. Darshak Shah, to participate in the  discussion with Mr. Dervis in order to avoid discussing  issues previously discussed with the Controller and  Treasurer, Ms. Julie-Anne Mejia. Mr. Dervis indicated during  the discussion that Mr. Shah was in Dervis' suite and left  his office to ask Mr. Shah to join the meeting. From first  hand observation, it appears that Mr. Dervis deliberately  misled USUN by asserting that Mr. Shah was no longer in the  building. See paras. 5 and 6. End Comment.     2. (S) Dervis expressed his regret that Ambassador Wallace  and UNDP had encountered difficulties in meeting. Mr. Dervis  explained that he wanted Ambassador Wolff and Ambassador  Wallace to meet with his deputy, Associate Administrator Ad  Melkert, not because he was avoiding a meeting with U.S.  officials, but because Melkert deals exclusively with the  operational activities of UNDP, while Mr. Dervis heads the  larger United Nations Development Group (UNDG) and focuses on  the issues raised in that context. Ambassador Wallace stated  that he insisted on meeting with Mr. Dervis because he was  instructed to demarche Mr. Dervis personally, via the highest  levels of the U.S. Government. Ambassador Wallace further  underscored the importance of this matter to the U.S.  Government by stating the he would read verbatim from the  demarche given the fact that the demarche had been carefully  crafted.     3. (S) In response to the demarche, Mr. Dervis noted that as  head of UNDP he has less authority over the program and  activities of UNDP than people thought and very little  authority over other entities in the DPRK and other  countries. He added that the best way to effect change in  UNDP policies was through the Executive Board, stating that  if enough Member States expressed concern over UNDP  activities in the DPRK, then UNDP would be forced to curtail  its activities. Dervis also noted that the problem with any  type of humanitarian aid, is that since money is fungible it  can always be diverted to a military program regardless of  precautions. Ambassador Wallace assured Mr. Dervis that the  currency problem with UN agencies in the DPRK went well  beyond money being fungible; it was a systematic diversion of  very large amounts.     4. (S) Ambassador Wallace asked Mr. Dervis to explain why  UNDP programme audits seemed to either be non-existent or  unavailable to member states. Mr. Dervis stated that it is  against UNDP policy to make internal audits available.  Internal audits are "management tools of the organization"  and are conducted on a variety of issues ranging from  harassment to financial impropriety and that they may contain  personal information which could be inappropriate to share  with other entities. Ambassador Wallace questioned how member  states were to be assured that UNDP was conducting oversight  of their programmes if audits were not made available.  Ambassador Wallace continued by noting that UNDP's current  policy of not sharing internal audit information was  absolutely untenable and non-sustainable, especially with  respect to the DPRK, as interest in regard to this matter was  very high and would only grow over time. Ambassador Wallace  stated that the U.S. Government and USUN had taken  extraordinary and meticulous steps in preparing the demarche,  as the assertions related to the UNDP program are  significant. Ambassador Wallace added that the U.S.  Government is very focused on this issue and therefore needs  UNDP to take action to address the matter. Ambassador Wallace  requested that UNDP deliver copies of the most recent audits  and evaluations of the UNDP programme in the DPRK as soon as  possible.         5. (S) After learning that USUN had engaged in previous  demarches of the Controller, Mr. Darshak Shah, Mr. Dervis  requested his presence to answer additional questions about  UNDP policy and practice. Mr. Dervis and the other  participants claimed that they were not aware that USUN had  met with Mr. Shah on four separate occasions since August to  discuss this issue. USUN has dealt extensively with Mr. Shah,  as he was the primary point of contact for Mission demarches  concerning hard currency transactions in the DPRK, but he has  proven unable and unwilling to provide comprehensive and  consistent information on expenditures and audits of the UNDP  programme in the DPRK.     6. (S) Mr. Dervis and his Deputy Chief of Staff, Douglas Keh,  left the office to bring Mr. Shah into Administrator Dervis'  Office to participate in the discussions. Notably, a USUN  officer saw Mr. Shah, Mr. Keh and Mr. Dervis talking outside  of the office door. When Mr. Dervis and Mr. Keh re-entered  Mr. Dervis' office, Mr. Dervis informed Ambassador Wallace  that while Mr. Shah had been present earlier, he had left the  building to return to his own office down the street and was  unavailable. Unbeknownst to them, participating USUN officers  had met Mr. Shah on previous occasions and had introduced  Ambassador Wallace to Mr. Shah before the meeting, when USUN  officers and Mr. Shah happened to enter Mr. Dervis' office  suite at the same time. In addition, USUN saw Mr. Shah in  Dervis' suite upon leaving the meeting. When Ambassador  Wallace exited Dervis' office, Mr. Shah darted into an  adjacent office. Comment. USUN can only assume that Dervis  deliberately sought to prevent Mr. Shah's participation in  the meeting in order to avoid having him respond to  outstanding questions and explain his obfuscation during  previous meetings with USUN. End Comment.     7. (S) Because of the Controllers absence, USUN was unable to  garner firm information on UNDP's expenditures and audit  policies. Mr. Dervis did however, note that there was an  increase in the allocation to UNDP's audit office (OAPR) of  25.8 percent in the last year and that UNDP is trying to give  the office of OAPR as much resources as possible. As for the  availability of audit reports, Administrator Dervis' office  will provide what preliminary information they have by  December 21st.  WOLFF

Friday, June 17, 2011

Imagining a United Nations Without Diplomatic Immunity

by Claudia Rosett @ PajamasMedia.com

Why… that would mean the UN would be subject in the U.S. to genuine rule of law. A novel idea for the UN, where since its 1945 founding, immunity and impunity have gone hand in hand.

The usual argument in favor of immunity is that it is necessary for the UN to carry out its business. Such are the perquisites of diplomacy. But at the UN, which is a collective too often left by its 192 member states to police itself, this immunity translates all too easily into abuses of many kinds. In a recent post pegged to l’affaire Strauss-Kahn,Multilateralists Gone Wild, Colum Lynch provides a tour of assorted sexual escapades and allegations among the diplomatically immune set.

And then there is of course the effect of immunity on the UN’s financial integrity — or lack thereof. In a case worth watching, a Turkish businessman has now brought a $150 million lawsuit in New York federal court against the UN Development Program, or UNDP. The businessman, Kahraman Sadikoglu, alleges that the UNDP failed to pay him for his work in 2003 in clearing sunken ships from the Iraqi port of Um Qasr. The UNDP has refused to comment, respond, or accept notice that the lawsuit has been filed. A federal judge has issued an order that could open a way around this — the Fox News web site has the story, on how “Contract Dispute With United Nations Could Lead to End of Diplomatic Immunity.” If this gets real traction, it could just spell the makings of UN accountability on a scale the institution has been promising for decades, but never delivered on yet.

Wednesday, May 25, 2011

Contract Dispute With United Nations Could Lead to End of Diplomatic Immunity

Fox News - Fair & Balancedclick here for story

By Ed Barnes

Published May 24, 2011

| FoxNews.com

Kahraman Sadikoglu

Kahraman Sadikoglu

A federal judge in New York has issued an order that could lift the U.N.’s long-recognized diplomatic immunity in the United States involving contract disputes, opening the doors for claims of “hundreds of millions of dollars” against the world body, according to lawyers involved in the case.

Following a ruling by Judge P. Kevin Castel, both the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times on Wednesday will publish legal notices on behalf of Kahraman Sadikoglu, a Turkish billionaire businessman who is suing the U.N. Development Program (UNDP) for $150 million.

Click here to read the notices: 1 and 2.

The notices are a legal substitute for the process of officially serving the lawsuit to U.N. officials, who have refused to accept the authority of U.S. courts in this and other legal matters.

Sadikoglu was hired by the UNDP to clear the Iraqi harbor of Um Qasr, Iraq’s largest port in 2003, so that supplies could be delivered to the war-shattered nation. He has fought since that time to be paid for the work, and according to his lawyers is suing now because the U.N. failed to honor the terms of a 2008 agreement that would have settled the matter.

“But when they learned that money would come from their own funds,” according to George G. Irving, Sadikoglu’s attorney at the time, “they just ignored him.” Most of the reconstruction funds had either come from American or Iraqi coffers.

According to Irving, who once worked in the Legal Affairs Office of the U.N. Secretary General, it could open up the floodgates for hundreds of similar lawsuits.

“It is not unusual for the U.N. to play these kinds of games with contractors. They try to frustrate them at every turn so they give up and go away,” he said. But because those contractors would now have access to the courts, the amounts the U.N. could be forced to pay could “amount to hundreds of millions of dollars in claims.”

One officer at an international aid organization said the problem of non-payment is so bad that organizations now mockingly say the UNDP acronym really stands for “U.N. Don’t Pay.”
UNDP has since rebuffed efforts to reach a settlement, rejected the idea of arbitration, and has even refused to accept notice a lawsuit had been filed.

It was that defiance of legal procedure, and the failure of the organization to follow its own procedures, that prompted Castel to allow Sadikoglu’s lawyers to circumvent the normal requirements of serving notice of the suit. If Castel goes on to hear the case, it would set a precedent by erasing the U.N.’s diplomatic immunity, at least on contract disputes.

Asked about the new development, Stanislav Saling, a public affairs officer with the U.N., emailed this response: “We are aware of the case regarding Mr. Sadikoglu and have been in discussions with him for a number of years in an effort to come to some common understanding. However, since this matter is now under consideration in court, I cannot comment further.”

Sadikoglu’s story was one of the rare cases of early reconstruction in Iraq actually working. Originally hired by Saddam Hussein to clear Um Qasr of wreckage from the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq War, Sadikoglu’s work was suspended because of U.N. sanctions against Saddam and other problems. But he was asked to continue with the project by UNDP after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq forced Saddam from power.

The project was massive. Nineteen sunken ships had to be cleared from the harbor, cut up and sold for salvage. Sadikoglu brought in nine of his own ships to house the recovery crews and perform the work. Despite the chaos and terror of the early years of the invasion, Sadikoglu was able to raise the ships and open the harbor.

Officials from the Coalition Provisional Authority, who had oversight of the port at the time, said Sadikoglu not only completed the work on time, but managed to meet the changing demands of the UNDP as the work progressed. They, too, said they cannot understand why he was never paid.

Monday, March 14, 2011

Helen Clark's hypocrisy about Human Rights in Turkey - only postpones inevitable clashes



Helen in Turkey - Are any of these kids Kurds?



German Government said recently: “A country that disregards the human rights of women as much as Turkey does, that on its own territory renders life difficult for Christians, from such a prime minister we do not need lessons about how to deal with religious minorities in our countries,”.

Well as expected Helen Clark failed to mention during her recent trip in Turkey the Human Rights issue of minorities and how Christians are being abused and threatened to the point that many are living the country.

Is UNDP a tacit accomplice of Turkish Government on Human Rights violation ? Statistics say that so far UNDP in Turkey has not provided a single dollar support to any minority, openly endorsing Turkish islamist and militaristic government stand on Kurdish situation.


Wednesday, January 26, 2011

Contractor files against UNDP in Southern District Court

finally a contractor who was for more than 5 years played by UNDP (United Nations Development Programme) and its Administrator Kemal Dervis - has finally filed with the Southern District Court in New York.

Sadikoglu v. United Nations Development Programme

as 1:2011cv00294
Plaintiff: Kahraman Sadikoglu
Defendant: United Nations Development Programme
Presiding Judge: P. Kevin Castel
Cause Of Action: Diversity-Other Contract

Thursday, November 11, 2010

FoxNews publishes Security Council report on North Korea

Fox News - Fair & Balanced



Security Council Gets North Korea Nuke Report

Published November 10, 2010

| Associated Press

UNITED NATIONS -- A report by U.N. experts saying North Korea is exporting banned nuclear and missile technology to Iran, Syria and Myanmar has been sent to the Security Council after China dropped its objections, U.N. diplomats said Wednesday.

Click here for a PDF of the report, obtained exclusively by Fox News.

The findings by the seven-member panel monitoring the implementation of sanctions against North Korea were first reported by The Associated Press in May.

The panel's report was submitted to the Security Council committee monitoring sanctions against Pyongyang in early May but China, a close ally of North Korea, blocked its transmission to the full 15-member council, diplomats said, speaking on condition of anonymity because consultations have been private.

The experts said North Korea is exporting nuclear and ballistic missile technology and using multiple intermediaries, shell companies and overseas criminal networks to circumvent U.N. sanctions. It called for further study of these suspected activities and urged all countries to try to prevent them.

The 47-page report and a 23-page annex document sanctions violations reported by U.N. member states, including four cases involving arms exports and two seizures of luxury goods by Italy -- two yachts and high-end recording and video equipment. The report also details the broad range of techniques that North Korea is using to try to evade sanctions imposed by the U.N. Security Council after its two nucleartests in 2006 and 2009.

U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Florida Republican, said in a statement Wednesday that the report "should be a wake-up call for the U.S. and other responsible nations."

"Instead of continuing its failed strategy of seeking to engage the regime in endless negotiation, the administration must ratchet up pressure on Pyongyang," she said.

Ros-Lehtinen called for "new and effective" sanctions, and forNorth Korea to be put back on the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism.

Sunday, March 7, 2010

UNDP assisting United States Government in Counterterrorism efforts !

Good afternoon. It's really a pleasure to be here at the International Peace Institute and an honor to be part of IPI's distinguished speaker's series. As someone who has participated in IPI events before entering the Obama administration, I know that its reputation for stimulating open, constructive dialogue is well-deserved. This is critical to producing the innovative thinking required to tackle some of the 21st century's greatest transnational challenges.

And as the events of December remind us, terrorism remains one of the most complicated of these to address. Although al-Qa'ida's core is under perhaps the greatest pressure it has ever faced, the challenge we face remains acute because of the strength of some of the group's affiliates in Yemen, Somalia, Iraq, and the Maghreb and Sahel and the distribution of its narrative. This highlights a more complex, more global picture than ever before. The threat posed by the al-Qa'ida message is more networked and widely spread than anything we have experienced.

What's more, al-Qa'ida isn't the only terrorist group with global ambitions. For example, Lashkar e-Taiba has made it clear that it is willing to undertake bold, mass-casualty operations with a target set that would please al-Qa'ida planners. This underscores the importance of not looking too narrowly when we look at the problem set.

The global nature of the common challenge we face is clear. Citizens from dozens of countries around the world, the vast majority of them not from the United States, are being victimized by terrorism and violent extremism. President Obama recognizes that the United States cannot address this threat alone. Rather, we have and will continue to reach out, and, on the basis of mutual interests and mutual respect, forge international coalitions. We are building (and sometimes rebuilding) partnerships- bilateral, with multilateral organizations such as the UN, and with the private sector, and civil society.

This is a critical part of our comprehensive approach to addressing the threat. It is based on the premise that military power, intelligence operations, and law enforcement alone will not eliminate the underlying political, economic, and social conditions that help put so many individuals in situations where they might choose the path to violence.

Let me to highlight some of the pillars of this new US approach where our partnership with the UN is critical.

First, we are focused on building political will through consistent diplomatic engagement with counterparts and senior leaders for common counterterrorism objectives, again both bilaterally and multilaterally.

Second, we are committed to addressing the state insufficiency that allows terrorists to operate freely by promoting effective civilian law enforcement, good governance and the rule of law. A major focus of this work involves effectively building capacity and making counterterrorism training for police, prosecutors, border officials, and members of the judiciary more systematic, more innovative and far reaching. CTED, UNODC, and the wider Counter-Terrorism Implementation Task Force can each make important contributions to this effort.

Third, we are working with partners, including with UN agencies such as UNDP, UNICEF, and UNESCO, to help countries confront what Deputy National Security Adviser John Brennan has called the upstream factors - the political, social, and economic conditions that terrorists try to exploit to win over new recruits. Accordingly, we are supporting the broader provision of essential social services to deny radicals that aspect of state insufficiency for the purposes of radicalization.

Fourth, we are ratcheting up our efforts to resolve longstanding political and other conflicts that fuel the grievances that violent extremists can latch on to. At the top of the list is the Arab-Israeli conflict, and, as you know, President Obama, Secretary Clinton, and Special Envoy George Mitchell are working very hard to restart direct negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

Fifth, and at the heart of the Obama Administration's approach, is to identify the drivers of radicalization and identify how to address them most effectively. We are asking ourselves time and time again, how do we take one terrorist off the street without creating ten more? What can we do to attack the drivers of violent extremism so al-Qa'ida and its affiliates finally have to cope with a shrinking pool of recruits? What steps can be taken to counter the narrative being offered by al-Qa'ida and its extremist allies?

Finally, our approach recognizes that our counterterrorism efforts can best succeed when they make central respect for human rights and the rule of law. Because as President Obama has said from the outset, there should be no tradeoff between our security and our values. Indeed, in light of what we know about radicalization, it is clear that navigating by our values is an essential part of a successful counterterrorism effort. We have moved to rectify past excesses of the past few years by working to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, by forbidding enhanced interrogation techniques, and by eliminating secret detention sites.

Enhanced multilateral engagement at the UN

As part of our effort to strengthen our partnerships around the globe, we have been reengaging at the UN and in multilateral fora. The Administration's renewed commitment to working more closely with the UN extends far beyond counter-terrorism in recognition of the essential role the UN plays in many critical areas. But we also recognize the UN's important role in harnessing member states efforts to further international counterterrorism objectives, and it is on that that I want to elaborate now.

Constructive US leadership and engagement at the UN demonstrates first of all our commitment to multilateral, rule-of-law-based approaches. We expect to work more effectively with a range of partners and with greater legitimacy to support counterterrorism efforts in the process. Such an approach can also be more cost-effective for all nations, because of the UN's ability to leverage international expertise and programs.

In other instances, the United Nations, because of its impartiality and expertise, is especially well-suited to playing an important role in building counterterrorism cooperation among practitioners in regions rife with distrust or conflict. This is proving to be the case in South Asia, where CTED organized a trust-building workshop in Bangladesh that brought together senior police and prosecutors from across the sub-region last November and has plans for a follow-on event in Sri Lanka later this year.

Over the course of 2010 and beyond, the United States looks forward to working with others to find ways to strengthen our counterterrorism partnerships with the UN and to maximize the ability of the organization to contribute to our collective efforts to combat and prevent terrorism.

I would like to spend a few minutes highlighting what will be some of the themes of this engagement.

I. First and foremost, for all nations to benefit, we will seek to engage member states from across the world, not just on the Security Council. Ambassador Rice has underscored the importance of reaching out not just to ?Dthe Permanent Five?? and to our Western partners, but to nations of all sizes in Africa, South and Southeast Asia, Latin America, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Islands. Clearly, we need an inclusive approach for building and sustaining a global consensus on the fight against terrorism.

With this in mind, we are working with our partners on the Security Council to see the UN Counter-Terrorism Committee become more transparent and to find ways to involve those countries that are not members of the committee in its work-and let me add that we are encouraged by the strong leadership that Turkey is providing the CTC. A more transparent CTC, which is more accessible to the wider membership and regional organizations and civil society, is critical to sustaining global support for the implementation of what remains the UN's pivotal response to the events of 9/11 - Resolution 1373.

More broadly, we are interested in exploring ways to build practical cross-regional counterterrorism cooperation at the UN. We need to move beyond the often polarized discourse on counterterrorism, in particular surrounding definitional issues, that too often - and unnecessarily -blocks multilateral cooperation, even among countries who cooperate closely on counter-terrorism bilaterally.

This kind of engagement is a small part of a wider Administration effort to seek a new beginning with Muslim communities around the world, and to expand upon the partnerships President Obama outlined in his Cairo speech last June. The President's February appointment of Rashad Hussain to serve as his Special Envoy to the OIC is just one sign of this commitment.

The UN should be a place where we focus on what brings us together, not what drives us apart. In terms of counterterrorism, we can all agree on the urgent need to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al-Qa'ida and its affiliates - a network that has killed thousands of people of many faiths and nationalities. We can agree that the UN plays a critical role in helping countries build criminal justice and other institutional capacities required to address this threat over the long-term. We should work together to reinforce this.

II. Second, the U.S. will work to ensure a more comprehensive approach to combating and preventing terrorism. This approach is consistent with the UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy, with its emphasis not only on short term security and law enforcement measures, but on longer-term preventive ones as well. For example, we are eager to engage multilaterally on Countering Violent Extremism issues - one of my highest priorities - and to explore the possibility of having the UN assume a larger role here.

This engagement will consistently underscore the need for the UN to play its part to ensure that national counterterrorism measures are grounded in respect for human rights and the rule of law. I was pleased to represent the United States and reinforce its commitment in this area during the Arria-formula meeting on human rights and counterterrorism organized by Mexico last November.

When we talk about the human rights dimension, Security Council Resolution 1904, adopted last December, is an important milestone. It not only reaffirms the global consensus against al-Qa'ida and the Taliban, but strengthens implementation of the UN sanctions, and improves the fairness and transparency of the regime.

We hope the resolution will help restore confidence in both the Consolidated List and the wider sanctions regime. With improved confidence in this instrument, the implementation of travel bans, financial restrictions and arms sanctions should be used more effectively and globally against terrorists and their supporters. In particular, we hope it can have an increasing impact against those hindering peace and stability in Afghanistan and Pakistan, as well as the Arabian Peninsula.

III. Third, we recognize the important role of the UN as a forum to develop the capacity of national criminal justice officials and to enhance technical and other practical counterterrorism cooperation more broadly. During the past year, the UN has adopted a more targeted approach to much of its counterterrorism work. This approach has proven itself increasingly adept in developing training and other capacity-building programs to address the specific regional and subregional counterterrorism needs.

This is part of a much-needed effort to connect these activities to the day-to-day work of national counterterrorism practitioners. Partly as a result of such efforts, like those of CTED in South Asia and UNODC's in West Africa, the organization's counterterrorism activities are also becoming more closely linked to its broader efforts to address international peace and security issues. These are all positive developments. And I want to add that we are encouraged by the strong leadership the various UN bodies have today.

We will explore how the various UN counterterrorism capacity-building tools can be best leveraged in the context of the wider international community's efforts to address peace and security challenges in priority countries and regions such as Pakistan, Yemen, the Sahel, and the Horn of Africa.

Building the institutional capacities of fragile, failing, and failed states to allow them to confront a range of transnational security challenges, to promote the rule of law and governance, and to provide education and other basic services to their people is the bread and butter of the UN's day-to-day work. The UN work on counterterrorism is improved as member states are able to govern effectively, control their own borders and fight crime at home.

Certainly individual counterterrorism actors have played important -and successful-roles. We believe, however, that the current approach to countering terrorism at the UN can be too stove-piped and insufficiently linked with the organization's other institution-building efforts. This is not an uncommon problem in many national governments, including, at times, my own. More holistic, coordinated thinking on these issues is needed to make the organization's work in this field even more relevant and effective. We look forward to continuing to work with partners, including within the UN Secretariat and its newly established Counter-Terrorism Implementation Task Force Support Office, to stimulate this thinking.

Finally, we will encourage the UN to focus more attention on highlighting the important role that a robust civil society can play in countering terrorism.

So far, the UN's rich tradition of working with and empowering civil society around the world has yet to reach its counterterrorism work. Going forward, we would like to see the UN, in particular the CTC/CTED and the broader CTITF, to engage more with nongovernment experts and civil society groups more broadly. By doing so, the UN can create a constrained environment so terrorists find it harder to operate.

In addition, these UN actors need to encourage states to provide civil society with political space to allow it to be a responsible counterterrorism partner. The UN can lend its voice to remind states not to use counterterrorism legislation to justify the targeting of dissident and other civil society groups, as well as to resist efforts to clamp down on freedom of association, speech, and assembly.

These UN efforts should be balanced with the its ongoing work in highlighting the importance of having safeguards in place to ensure that charities and other NGOs are not being used as conduits for terrorist financing.

Given this expert audience and our venue, I have focused my remarks on the United Nations, however, I want to underscore that the Obama Administration has been reengaging in a broad range of multilateral counterterrorism fora that, in all honesty, were underutilized for too long. This includes various regional bodies and the G8 CTAG, where just last week we agreed with our partners on a series of important reform measures.

The net effect of increased US engagement has been manifold: We are increasing the pool of donors for capacity building. We are working to strengthen international resolve against terrorism. We are also strengthening global norms so that countries jointly do a better job to build security together. This broader multilateral effort we see as essential, as it multiplies the impact of US and all bilateral efforts; reinforces the larger point that counterterrorism is truly a global issue; and supports our common security by investing in our common humanity.

We take it as an essential principle of our engagement that building and strengthening counterterrorism partnerships is not just about confronting our enemies but the enemies of others as well.

The events of December 25 certainly underscored the continuing peril we all face, the determination and adaptability of our foes, and the evolving complexity of the overall threat against many nations and peoples.

Contemporary terrorism has been decades in the making. It will take many more years to unmake it. There is much we still need to learn, especially about how to prevent individuals from choosing the path of violence. But I believe the United States now has the right framework for our policies, which increasingly takes into account the indispensable role that the UN plays. Ultimately, I am confident that this will lead to the decisions and actions that will strengthen peace and security for the United States and the world.

Thank you for coming to listen today. I look forward to your questions.

Source: U.S. Department of State

New Iran rocket launch site shows N. Korea links: Jane's

LONDON — Iran is building a new rocket launch site a short distance from an existing complex and seems to be working with North Korea, information group IHS Jane's said Friday.

Construction visible from satellite imagery of the new site, near the city of Semnan east of Tehran, suggests that Iran has been collaborating with Pyongyang, said the London-based defence intelligence group.

Iran unveiled the Simorgh (Phoenix) space-launch vehicle (SLV) on February 3 but has not publicly revealed the location of the rocket's launch complex, it reported.

But Jane's said it had observed a new launch pad four kilometres (6.5 miles) northeast of the existing Semnan site on a satellite image dated February 6.

The site could ultimately launch Tehran's next-generation Simorgh rocket, it said.

Jane's said that using satellite photographs taken on February 11, as Iran celebrated the Islamic revolution's 31st birthday, it had identified the Simorgh and Safir-2 rockets displayed in Tehran's Azadi Square.

The site includes a gantry tower which is 13 metres (43 feet) wide, approximately 18-20 metres tall "and has a cliff-side flame bucket nearly as high as the tower itself."

"It appears midway towards completion," it said, adding that the launch pad could easily accommodate the 27-metre Simorgh if the gantry were to be extended by an additional 10 metres.

And it added: "The development of the Semnan facility and the Simorgh SLV both demonstrate the likelihood of collaboration with North Korea in Iran's missile programme.

"The platforms seen on the new gantry tower resemble those seen on the gantry tower at North Korea's new launch pad at Tongchang. A drainage pit 170 metres directly in front of the pad also mirrors one at Pyongyang's new west-coast launch site.

"Similarly, the first stage of the Simorgh strongly resembles the North Korean Unha-2, with four clustered engines and nearly the same dimensions."

The respected information group concluded that Iran appears to be forging ahead with developing its missile and rocket capabilities despite US-led diplomatic pressure, including threats of new United Nations sanctions.

"Given these investments in its missile infrastructure, and despite the United States attempting to garner support for further sanctions against Iran for its nuclear programme, Tehran appears determined to continue developing its missile and rocket capabilities in the foreseeable future," it said.

The West suspects Iran of secretly trying to build an atomic bomb and fears the technology used to launch space rockets could be diverted into developing long-range ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads.

Tehran denies having military goals for its space programme or its nuclear drive.

North Korea arms to Africa: Unusual only because illegal

The recently reported seizure of a North Korean arms shipment supposedly intended for Congo-Brazzaville highlights the continuing flow of weapons into African conflict zones from multiple sources.

Last week, South Africa reported to the United Nations that it had intercepted concealed North Korean military cargo in November.

The shipment, it said, violated a UN arms embargo and may have been made in collusion with China.

But larger-scale military transfers to unstable African states by other suppliers, including the United States, are regularly carried out without notice by the world press.

The T-54 and T-55 tank parts seized by South African authorities in Durban originated in North Korea.

They had been loaded onto a container ship in the Chinese port of Dalian.

China says it is investigating the shipment, which violates a UN ban on military exports by North Korea.

The war material, listed on a manifest as “spare parts of bulldozer,” had been hidden behind sacks of rice carried on a French-owned vessel.

A bill of lading indicated that the cargo was bound for Pointe Noire in Congo-Brazzaville, an oil-producing country that borders the much larger Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).

There is reason to suspect that the estimated $770,000 worth of North Korean military equipment was actually destined for the DRC, which is known to have T-55 tanks in its arsenal.

Episodes of unrest

The US embassy in Congo-Brazzaville says in a posting on its website that “there have been no serious episodes of unrest or violence since the March 2003 peace accord” that put an end to a civil war in the country. And a UN report released in December found that both North Korea and China had shipped weapons to the DRC’s army.

A group of UN experts indicated in the report that a North Korean ship, the Bi Ro Bong, had delivered more than 3400 tonnes of weapons to the DRC military in January 2009 through Boma Port.

The UN group also reported that North Korean military personnel had trained DRC troops in Kinshasha in May 2009.

The US and North Korea may be radically unlike, but when it comes to training Congolese forces, the two have identical aims.