Connect with us

International

Palestine’s path to full membership in the UN will be long

Palestine’s request to become the 194th State of the United Nations could follow the relatively rapid steps of other States that have joined the UN throughout the 21st century, but in its case it faces the probable veto of the United States in the Security Council.

The most recent State to take a seat at the UN as a full member was South Sudan, which in 2011 separated from Sudan after a friendly agreement. His incorporation into the UN was made by acclamation on July 14 of that year, just a week after his declaration of independence.

In 2006, Montenegro, another state that emerged from the dismemberment of the former Yugoslavia, separated after a popular referendum from the last remaining remnant of that federation and proclaimed its independence from Serbia. The referendum took place on June 3 and on the 28th of that same month the state was admitted to the UN.

And 2002 was a very special year because the UN welcomed two members: Switzerland did so in September, thus putting an end to an anomaly that made it welcome numerous international organizations but did not sit at the UN for the sake of a principle of neutrality inscribed in its DNA.

Much more traumatic was the chaos of Timor Leste, which was also admitted in September 2002. The new Asian country, a former Portuguese colony, lived 24 years of occupation and resistance against Indonesia and then almost three years of supervised administration of the UN, but its entry into the United Nations was unanimously approved by the Assembly.

Advertisement
20250701_dengue_728x90
previous arrow
next arrow

In 2011, Palestine first presented its formal request to enter the United Nations, but the procedure ran aground in its first stage: it did not get the support of 9 of the 15 members of the Security Council (that is, the qualified majority), so that request did not reach the General Assembly, the second stage of the process.

Palestine had to settle for acquiring the status of “observer state,” an anomaly that only the Vatican has in the United Nations, which is not even considered a country with its own attributes.

Palestine obtained 138 votes in the General Assembly in favor of its new observer status, while 9 voted against (including Israel, the United States and Canada) and 41 abstained.

It is foreseeable that Palestine will not have it as easy as South Sudan, Montenegro or Switzerland had, and all observers assume that Washington will use the veto tool in the Security Council, which is the instance where the incorporation process begins and ends.

According to the UN letter, the request for a new State necessarily goes through the following stages: it is formulated before the Security Council, which appoints an ad hoc committee to study it formed by the fifteen members, and if the committee approves it, the Council then assesses whether it is “a peace-loving state” (article 60), in which case it sends the issue to the General Assembly.

Advertisement
20250701_dengue_728x90
previous arrow
next arrow

In the Assembly, the votes of two-thirds of the Member States are needed to move forward, and if this happens, the final decision returns to the Security Council.

The United States, as a permanent member of the Security Council, has the right to veto the process at any time – in 2011 it threatened to do so, but did not need it – and few doubt that he will also use it on this occasion.

If this happens, the dream of Palestine will have fallen by the wayside.

But something has changed since 2011: now, every time a permanent member uses the right of veto, the question comes to the General Assembly, where that country must explain its position and submit to a non-binding vote.

At the current juncture, the United States will once again be evident in the face of a very large majority of states that are expected to support Palestinian membership.

Advertisement
20250701_dengue_728x90
previous arrow
next arrow
Continue Reading
Advertisement
20250701_dengue_300x250_01

International

U.S. strike in Caracas killed 32 cuban security officers, experts say surprise was crucial

Two days after a U.S. military attack on a military complex in Caracas, Havana confirmed that 32 members of its security forces were killed in the operation, some of whom were likely responsible for protecting Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro. The Venezuelan government also reported that 23 of its own military personnel died during the assault.

Of the Cuban dead, 21 belonged to the Ministry of the Interior, which oversees intelligence services, and 11 were from the Revolutionary Armed Forces. No official information has been released regarding potential injuries.

Experts consulted by AFP agreed that the element of surprise was the key to the success of the U.S. military operation, which was meticulously prepared over months and kept entirely secret. “Cuban intelligence … convinced the Maduro regime and its security agencies that the United States would never attack Venezuelan territory,” explained José Gustavo Arocha, a former Venezuelan army officer and expert at the Center for a Secure Free Society, a U.S. defense think tank.

Fulton Armstrong, a former U.S. intelligence officer and Latin America researcher at American University in Washington, also highlighted the failure to anticipate the attack and to detect U.S. helicopters entering Venezuelan airspace, noting that even a five- to ten-minute warning could have made a significant difference for the guards and for Maduro.

U.S. forces additionally benefited from “incredible” real-time intelligence provided by stealth drones to monitor movements of the Venezuelan leader, according to experts. A highly sophisticated combat team was deployed, and analysts believe the order to “fire to kill” was likely given.

Advertisement
20250701_dengue_728x90
previous arrow
next arrow

Paul Hare, former British ambassador to Cuba and Venezuela, added that Cuban intelligence also underestimated the extent of U.S. access to internal cooperation within Venezuela’s security apparatus, contributing to the operation’s success.

Continue Reading

International

Report: Vatican mediation included russian asylum offer ahead of Maduro’s capture

The Vatican reportedly attempted to negotiate an offer of asylum in Russia for Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro before his capture by U.S. forces last Saturday, according to The Washington Post.

The U.S. newspaper reported that Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin spoke with U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See Brian Burch about a supposed Russian proposal to grant Maduro asylum. A source familiar with the offer said that what was proposed “was that he would leave and be able to enjoy his money,” and that part of the plan involved Russian President Vladimir Putin guaranteeing Maduro’s security.

Despite these diplomatic efforts, the United States carried out a military operation that resulted in Maduro’s capture and detention, along with his wife Cilia Flores, who are now being held in New York on narcoterrorism charges.

The Washington Post also noted that U.S. President Donald Trump may have invited Maduro to Washington for in-person discussions about safe conduct, an offer that Maduro reportedly declined.

Continue Reading

International

Pope Leo XIV warns of rising “war enthusiasm” in global politics

“War is becoming fashionable again, and war enthusiasm is spreading.” Pope Leo XIV delivered a somber assessment of international politics on Friday, sharply criticizing the growing reliance on force by nations at a time when his country of birth is increasing military displays.

While offering New Year’s greetings to the diplomatic corps, the U.S.-born pope — who also holds Peruvian nationality — delivered one of his strongest speeches to date, denouncing the “worrying weakening of multilateralism” and the emergence of what he described as “war enthusiasm.”

From the outset of his address to ambassadors accredited to the Holy See, delivered in English, the pontiff lamented the rise of a “diplomacy of force, by individuals or groups of allied states,” at the expense of dialogue, warning that such trends threaten the global order established after World War II.

“Peace is no longer sought as a gift or as a good desirable in itself, or as the pursuit of ‘the establishment of an order willed by God, one that entails greater justice among human beings.’ Instead, it is pursued through weapons as a condition for asserting one’s own dominance,” the head of the Catholic Church said, without directly naming any country.

His remarks come amid ongoing conflicts between Ukraine and Russia and in the Gaza Strip, and against a broader international backdrop marked by European concerns over a potential U.S. takeover of Greenland, the autonomous Danish territory, a scenario that could threaten the cohesion of NATO.

Advertisement
20250701_dengue_728x90
previous arrow
next arrow
Continue Reading

Trending

Central News