As the U.N. Security Council weighs its reaction to North Korea's third and largest nuclear test, leader Kim Jong Un's government gave diplomats in New York something new to chew on.

Speaking at the U.N. Conference on Disarmament, the North Korean official Jon Yong Ryong warned the gathering of international diplomats that his government was prepared to take action against South Korea.

"As the saying goes, a new-born puppy knows no fear of a tiger. South Korea's erratic behavior would only herald its final destruction," he said.

The remarks came on a day when South Korea's President Lee Myung-bak delivered his farewell address to the nation he will cease leading on Monday, when a new South Korean leader, Park Geun-hye, will take up the reins of power. Clearly, the North Korean leadership was hoping to see him off with a final goodbye kick on his way out.

But it was the second time in a week that North Korea has threatened military action, raising concerns in New York that Pyongyang is eager to stay on a path of confrontation for a bit longer. Last week, the North Korean government issued a similar statement warning the United States that it was prepared to take action if Washington pursues further steps to rein in its activities.

"If the United States makes the situation complicated by remaining hostile through the end we will have no choice but to take serial measures with more intense second and third response," the statement warned. It added that the interdiction of North Korean vessels "will be instantly regarded as an act of war and will lead to our relentless retaliatory strikes on their bases."

Last week, Reuters reported that North Korea has informed China, its most important ally, that is is preparing for a new round of missile launches or nuclear tests. The move suggested that Kim Jong Un, far from looking for a way to lower the temperature, was turning up the furnace.

But to what end?

North Korea's threats are unlikely to soften the Western response to its nuclear test. On Monday, the European Union agreed to impose a new round of sanctions aimed at further isolating North Korea from the international financial and banking communities.

Perhaps North Korea is hoping to scare China into blocking a new round of more intrusive U.N. financial and diplomatic sanctions being pressed by the United States and its Asian and European allies. In their preliminary discussion with Security Council colleagues, Chinese diplomats have urged their Western partners not to overact to the North Korean action. But some officials say that China, infuriated by North Korean's refusal to heed its calls for restraint, is now prepared to inflict some pain on its troublesome neighbor.

Some U.N. diplomats said they believe that North Korea is simply trying to strengthen its hand in its dealing with the United States.

"When a mischievous boy wants to get a girl's attention he will pull her pigtail," said one Asian diplomat who follows the issue. The main goal of the tough talk, the official said, is to scare the United States into re-engaging with North Korea. "I think the new leadership wants to show the Americans that they are capable of escalating."

George Lopez, a former member of a U.N. Security Council panel monitoring sanctions on North Korea's nuclear and ballistic missile programs, said Pyongyang's threats follow the usual pattern: "lots of bombast, lots of defiance, and then a moment of calm when they say let's talk."

But he said the world is confronting a country with a renewed level of self-confidence, brought on by a pair of highly successful ballistic missile and nuclear tests, within a very short time frame. "I don't treat this as bluster. They want to make a definitive statement that we are a power that needs to be dealt with," Lopez said.

"The United States is going to say we've been here before, but North Korea wants to present itself as having risen to a qualitatively different stage" in its military status.

Follow me on Twitter @columlynch

An independent U.N. human rights researcher this morning announced the opening of an investigation into the use of drone attacks and other targeted assassinations by the United States and other governments.

Ben Emmerson, the U.N. special rapporteur on counterterrorism and human rights, told reporters in London this morning that the "exponential" rise in American drones strikes posed a "real challenge to the framework of international law," according to a statement issued by his office. Emmerson said there was a need to develop a legal framework to regulate the use of drones, and ensure "accountability" for their misuse.

"The plain fact is that this technology is here to stay," he said. "It is therefore imperative that appropriate legal and operational structures are urgently put in place to regulate its use in a manner that complies with the requirement of international law.

The decision to open a drone investigation drew praise from critics of America's drone policies. "We welcome this investigation in the hopes that global pressure will bring the U.S. back into line with international law requirements that strictly limit the use of lethal force," said Hina Shamsi, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's National Security Project. "To date, there has been an abysmal lack of transparency and no accountability for the U.S. government's ever-expanding targeted killing program."

The Obama administration has defended its use of drones as a more humane alternative to military combat. John Brennan, the White House advisor on counterterrorism and the president's new nominee to lead the CIA, defended the U.S. program as "ethical and just," saying that the targeted nature of the strikes was more humane than traditional military strikes, lessening the prospects that civilians are killed.

Emmerson challenged what he characterized as Brennan's contention that the United States and its allies are engaged in a global war against a stateless enemy which requires the prosecution of war across international borders. Emmerson said that "central objective" of his inquiry is to "look at evidence that drone strikes and other forms of remote targeted killings have caused disproportionate civilian casualties in some instances, and to make recommendations concerning the duty of states to conduct throughout independent and impartial investigations into such allegations, with a view to securing accountability..."

Emmerson said that he has assembled a team of international lawyers and experts, including British lawyer Sir Geoffrey Nice and New York University professor Sarah Knuckey, to help identify cases in which targeted killings may have resulted in civilian casualties. He said they would focus on 25 case studies in Afghanistan, the Palestinian territories, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen, to see whether there is a case worthy of prosecution. He said he would present his findings in October.

Emmerson is an independent U.N. rights expert, and his investigation is not sanctioned by U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon or the U.N. high commissioner for human rights, Navi Pillay. But his association with the United Nations is likely to carry greater political weight than those of independent administration critics.

Emmerson first announced plans to look into the American drone program in October, on the eve of U.S. presidential elections, citing frustration with both candidates' positions on drones."The Obama administration continues to formally adopt the position that it will neither confirm nor deny the existence of the drone program," he said at the time. "In reality, the administration is holding its finger in the dam of public accountability," he said according to a prepared copy of the speech.

Emmerson said today that the investigation emerged as the result of a request last June from China, Pakistan, and Russia, to investigate the use of drones in counterterrorism operations.

"The inquiry that I am launching today is a direct response to the requests made to me by states at the human rights council last June, as well as to the increasing international concern surrounding the issue of remote targeted killing through the use of UAV's [Unmanned Aerial Vehicles]," he said. "The exponential rise in the use of drone technology in a variety of military and non-military contexts represents a real challenge to the framework of established international law."

Follow me on Twitter @columlynch

Today's big Syria headline from Beijing: China unveils new 4-point peace initiative to end country's civil war.

The Chinese plan is, in a nutshell, a few bits and pieces borrowed from pre-existing Arab League and U.N. peace initiatives -- i.e, a phased region-by-region ceasefire, a political transition, and stepped up humanitarian relief. There's not a lot new here. And the irony is that these initiatives have, in the past, failed to gain momentum, in part, because China joined Russia in vetoing three resolutions promoting similar plans.

"A political settlement is the only viable solution in Syria," Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi said, according to Xinhua, which outlined Beijing's big idea:  

First, relevant parties in Syria should make every effort to stop fighting and violence, and cooperate actively with the mediation efforts of Brahimi. Relevant parties should implement effective steps toward a cease-fire, for example region by region or phase by phase, expand the areas of cease-fire, realize disengagement, and eventually bring an end to all armed conflict and violence.

Second, relevant parties in Syria should appoint empowered interlocutors as soon as possible so that, assisted by Brahimi and the international community, they can formulate through consultations a roadmap of political transition, establish a transitional governing body of broad representation, and implement political transition so as to end the Syrian crisis at an early date. To ensure a safe, stable and calm transition, the continuity and effectiveness of Syria's governmental institutions must be maintained.

Third, the international community should work with greater urgency and responsibility to fully cooperate with and support Brahimi's mediation efforts and make real progress in implementing the communique of the Geneva foreign ministers' meeting of the Action Group for Syria, Mr. Annan's six-point plan and relevant Security Council resolutions. The positive efforts of the Arab League and countries in the region in search of a political settlement should be valued.

Fourth, relevant parties should take concrete steps to ease the humanitarian crisis in Syria. The international community should increase humanitarian assistance to the Syrian people and ensure proper resettlement of refugees beyond the Syrian border and timely aid for those in need within Syria. The Syrian government and various parties should render full cooperation to the work of the United Nations and relevant neutral institutions to provide humanitarian assistance in all conflict-affected regions and ensure the safety of their personnel. At the same time, humanitarian issues should not be politicized and humanitarian assistance should not be militarized.

So, what are we to make of China's peace initiative?

Does it mark a turning point in its commitment to see the 18-month civil war brought to an end? Or an admission, perhaps, that Beijing is growing weary of its Syrian ally's refusal to halt a ruthlessly disproportionate response to its armed opponents, at the cost of thousands of civilian lives?

Or is this what a government does when a prominent international envoy -- in this case U.N.-Arab League Special Representative Lakhdar Brahimi, shows up at your door to press you to knuckle down on a recalcitrant friend? So is this just what Beijing scrapped together to appear that it's seriously invested in making peace?

Through most of the Syrian conflict, China has largely sought to avoid drawing much attention to itself, offering few ideas to resolve the crisis in closed-door Security Council consultations, while sticking to stock government talking points in public statements about the need to resolve the crisis peacefully while respecting Syria's sovereignty.

It's worth noting that while China is a major power, it's a bit player on Syria, taking its cue from Russia, which has been reluctant to ratchet up pressure on Bashar al-Assad to yield power to Syria's opposition forces. But Beijing has occasionally raised its profile -- it previously sent a high-level delegation to Middle East capitols to explain and defend its decision to veto Arab-backed U.N. Security Council resolutions on Syria - to avoid a political backlash against Chinese interests in the region.

It's probably useful that Beijing be seen backing Brahimi's mediation effort. And there is a curiously specific, though vague, call for a phased ceasefire in the proposal. But a close look at China's plan reveals that Beijing is largely restating positions previously agreed to by the international community -- including Kofi Annan's six-point plan and the Geneva Communiqué -- backed by the U.N.'s five big powers.

The Chinese plan also sidesteps controversial matters, like the fate of Assad at the end of a political transition. And there was little in China's statement that echoed Brahimi's call in Moscow earlier this week for "a real transition, not cosmetic reforms" in Syria. One Security Council diplomat dismissed the Chinese initiative as containing the same fatal flaw as its long-standing stance on Syria -- it's unwilling to apply pressure on Damascus to halt the killing.

Meanwhile, the Syrians haven't been able to get through Eid al-Adha, the Muslim religious holiday, without killing one another. "The government made the announcement that they were going to stop firing during the Eid period," Brahimi said in Moscow on Monday. Quite a few of the opposition groups did the same. Now each side is accusing the other side of having broken this ceasefire. The result is that there was no pause and the people of Syria haven't spent quiet days during the Eid."

Follow me on Twitter @columlynch.

At Turtle Bay, three times is not the charm. Today, Russia and China vetoed a U.S.-backed resolution threatening the Syrian government with sanctions, upending four months of U.N. diplomacy aimed at stemming a crisis that has left more than 15,000 dead and brought the country to the brink of a full-fledged civil war.

The action dealt a potential blow to U.N. Arab League emissary Kofi Annan's six-point peace plan and cast doubts that Moscow and Beijing are prepared to apply pressure on Damascus to meet its commitments to constrain its troops. The resolution failed to pass by a vote of 11 for and 2 against, with two countries, Pakistan and South Africa, abstaining.

After the vote, the council's Western powers lambasted Russia and China for casting their third veto of a U.N. Security Council resolution seeking to pressure the government of President Bashar al-Assad to curtail its violent crackdown, initially on civilians and more recently on armed opposition groups.

"The Security Council has failed utterly in its most important task on its agenda this year. This is another dark day in Turtle Bay," Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, told the 15-nation council after the vote. "This is the third time in 10 months that two members have prevented the Security Council from responding with credibility to the Syrian conflict. The first two vetoes were very destructive. This veto is even more dangerous and deplorable."  

Rice said she was troubled by fate of Syria's stockpile of chemical weapons, saying the possibility that Syria might use "chemical weapons against its own people should be a concern for us all." These weapons, she said, "must remain secure and the regime held accountable for their use."

Rice said the United States would no longer "pin its policy" on unarmed U.N. observers lacking even "minimal support" from the Security Council, but would work with a diverse coalition of countries outside the council to "bring pressure to bear" on the Syrian regime.
But there were indications that the West was unprepared to abruptly withdraw the monitors from Syria. Britain circulated a short resolution that would extend the mandate of the mission for 30 days.  Rice said that the United States "might be prepared" to support the British draft to allow a "safe and orderly withdrawal of U.N. monitors from Syria over the next month."

Still, the standoff in the Security Council raised doubts about the long term future of the U.N. mission in Syria, whose mandate expires at Friday midnight, and which has been severely restricted in its efforts to enforce a broken cease-fire agreement. In a press conference, Gen. Robert Mood, the head of the U.N. Supervision Mission in Syria (UNSMIS), said that "it pains me to say, but we are not on the track for peace in Syria and the escalations we have witnessed in Damascus over the past few days is a testimony to that."

Russia's U.N. envoy Vitaly Churkin, defended his country's decision to veto the U.S.-backed resolution, saying it was "biased" in that it threatened only the Syrian government with U.N. sanctions, while doing nothing to constrained an armed opposition movement that has carried out a series of ever more violent attacks against government targets, including a devastating strike on Tuesday that reached into the heart of Assad's national security leadership.

Churkin claimed that the Western approach is designed to "fan the flames" of violence in Syria, pursuing their own "geopolitical ambitions in the region and paving the way for the military push to remove Assad from power. He said Russia "simply cannot accept" a resolution threatening sanctions and foreign military involvement. Rice and other Western diplomats denied categorically that the resolution would pave the way to military action.

China's U.N. envoy, Li Baodong, reacted angrily to assertion by the United States and its European allies that it was shielding the Syrian regime and undercutting prospects for peace. "They are completely wrong," he said. He accused the Westerns sponsors of the resolution of pursuing "a rigid and arrogant approach" to the negotiations on the approach to Syria, refusing repeated efforts by China and other countries to negotiate amendments into the Western draft.

Kofi Annan's spokesman issued a statement saying that he was "disappointed that at this critical stage the U.N. Security Council could not unite and take the strong and concerted action he had urged and hoped force."

Follow me on Twitter @columlynch

Every several months, a U.N. Panel of Experts issues a report documenting Sudan's extensive violations of U.N. Security Council sanctions in Darfur, and pleads with the council's big powers to use their influence to persuade Khartoum and anti-government rebel groups to comply.

And every time, their appeals for backup are largely ignored, especially by China and Russia, which supply Khartoum with some of the arms and firepower that fuel Darfur's fighting, and which have routinely refused to fully cooperate with the panel's experts as they seek to trace the origins of prohibited weapons from factories in China and Russia.

Three former panel members, Claudio Gramizzi of Italy, Michael Lewis of Britain, and Jerome Tubiana of France, recently produced an unofficial report arguing that the international commitment to sanctions had eroded so much that even the United Nations itself was flouting the sanctions, facilitating the travel of a rebel field commander, Jibril Abdul Kareem, nicknamed "Tek," who was subject to a Security Council travel ban, to peace talks in Doha, Qatar.

The Tek episode is simply one nugget buried away in a confidential 80-plus page report, first reported by Africa Confidential, that documents systematic violations of a six-year-old U.N. arms embargo, travel ban, and asset freeze, imposed on Khartoum and rebel leaders in an effort to contain the violence in Sudanese province.

But the episode provides a depressing illustration of how an initiative that once enjoyed the enthusiastic backing of the council's major Western powers -- the United States, Britain, and France -- has become such a low priority that few key players in the region take it seriously anymore.

The Security Council first imposed an arms embargo on armed groups in Darfur in 2004, and expanded it the following year to include the government. The council also slapped a travel ban and an asset freeze on the leaders of both pro-government and anti-government armed groups in Darfur, including the government backed militia known as the Janjaweed, which gained international notoriety for its scorched earth raids, conducted on camels and backed by Sudanese air power, against countless Darfurian villages.

The measures were designed to curtail a massive wave of violence -- that ultimately led to the death of at least 300,000 people and the displacement of many times that number -- and to constrain the Sudanese government from carrying out mass murder in Darfur.

The report's three authors resigned late last summer over a dispute with the panel's Indian coordinator, who produced a competing official report. The panel, they wrote, "suffered from a major dissension" within the ranks. The coordinator, they complained, had insisted that each of the panel's five members conduct their work independently without coordinating or sharing information, a policy they believed undermined the panel's effectiveness.  But officials familiar with the dispute said the difference ran much deeper, reflecting a lack of faith in the integrity and competence of the panel's leadership.  Eric Reeves, a Smith College literature professor and Sudan activist, has written his own take on the report, highlighting the dissidents' far more critical account of the human rights situation in Darfur than the authors of the official U.N. report.

The Security Council's enthusiasm for the U.N. panel's work waned years ago, according to experts. In 2009, Enrico Carisch, a former head of the sanctions panel, testified before Congress that the Security Council had failed to act on more than 100 panel recommendations aimed at strengthening the sanctions. He also faulted the United States, France, and Britain for doing little to force a more public debate.

Carisch, currently an independent consultant who trains U.N. panel experts, told Turtle Bay that the dissidents' decision to produce a "shadow" report highlighted some of the institutional weakness of the U.N. sanctions system. At the same time, he said their breadth of the findings highlight the value of their work. "The powerful evidence reported by these experts demonstrates how skillful and sustained sanctions monitoring is important to shine a light into the darkest corners of conflict areas," Carisch said.  

The dissidents' expert report assails Khartoum for systematically violating the arms embargo, thwarting efforts of U.N. experts to enforce sanctions, and conducting ethnic cleansing against the Zaghawa tribe. It documents Sudan's use of use of Chinese small-caliber ammunition, Russian Mi-24 attack helicopters, Ukrainian tanks, and Belarussian Sukhoi-25 fighter jets

But it also provides a devastating account of the U.N. panels' own efforts to monitor and enforce the U.N. sanctions. Indeed, the report challenges much of the underlying evidence used to justify sanctions against "Tek" and two other rebel leaders, Adam Yaqub and Musa Hilal, the latter a notorious Janjaweed leader. The reports, produced by a previous team of U.N. panel experts, were riddled with inaccuracies, including misspelled names and unsupportable claims. For instance, the report notes that there may have been ample evidence that Hilal commanded militia engaged in widespread atrocities in his stronghold in north Darfur. But it also expressed serious doubts that he was responsible for the crime the U.N. panel attributed to him to justify sanctions. 

In April 2006, the U.N. panel accused Hilal of leading a Sept. 28, 2005, militia raid on the West Darfur villages of Acho, Aro Sharrow, and Gozmena, to seek revenge for the death of one of his sons who was purportedly killed by a rebel movement linked to the towns. The dissidents' report, however, said Hilal did not lead West Darfur's militias and that "it is unproved and unlikely that Musa Hilal was responsible and/or present"  at the scene of the raids. The report also said it found no evidence that Hilal's son had been killed.

While the dissidents questioned the justification for Jibril's designation on the sanctions list they also argued that the U.N. still has an obligation to enforce those measures.  But on July 20, 2010, Jibril traveled to Qatar with a travel document -- known as a laissez passer -- issued by the deputy chief of staff of the United Nations-African Union Joint Mediation Support Team(JMST). The visit, which lasted a year, was part of a Qatari-led mediation effort to broker a peace settlement between Khartoum and several Darfuri rebel groups.

The dissident panel members said the U.N. violation of sanctions in this instance was unnecessary. A provision in the six-year-old sanctions resolution -- Resolution 1591 -- includes an exemption allowing travel for sanctioned individuals participating in peace initiatives. However, the exemption can only be approved by the Security Council committee that oversees sanctions.

"The members of the panel are unaware of any request by the JSMT or from UNAMID [The U.N. African Union Mission in Darfur] to the sanctions committee for permission to issue this document or to authorize the travel of Tek by air to Qatar," the report states. "Jibril ‘Tek's' presence in Doha represents a case of violation of the sanctions regime." 

But the larger issue, according to the dissidents, is what the episode says about the U.N.'s ability and commitment to apply its own sanctions fairly and with conviction. "Should access to Darfur, and more generally cooperation from member states, United Nations and African Union bodies working in or on Darfur, as well as the general ability of the panel to provide accurate justifications for individual sanctions and monitor them, not increase in the future, the very existence of both the panel and the sanctions mechanism should be seriously reconsidered."

Follow me on Twitter @columlynch

Add another name to Syria's growing enemies list: Barbara Walters.

Syria's U.N. envoy, Bashar Jaafari, denounced the ABC broadcaster's handling of a prime time interview she conducted with President Bashar al-Assad, the first by an American television journalist since public protests began threatening the Syrian leader's rule.

"She distorted the truth," he told reporters outside the Security Council late on Monday. "We gave her the opportunity to interview the president for 59 minutes and she aired only 20 minutes." Walters, he protested, edited out "all the positive answers."

The blast against Walters came on a day when Syria faced mounting international pressure to halt its crackdown on protesters. The U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay accused the Syrian government of deliberately killing and torturing thousands of civilians during the anti government protests.

The confidential briefing, which was obtained by Turtle Bay, alleged that Syrian authorities have killed more than 5,000 civilians, military defectors, and security agents that have refused orders to kill civilians.

"The situation is intolerable," she said. "The nature and scale of abuses committed by Syrian forces since March indicate that crimes against humanity are likely to have been committed."

In response, Jaafari lashed out at Pillay, saying the high commissioner for human rights had violated "the honor of her office" by meddling in the internal affairs of a U.N. member state, and relying on accounts of military defectors. "Mrs. Pillay ... is not objective, she is not fair ... she has trespassed her mandate, she allowed herself to be misused."

The exchange capped a day of recriminations and finger pointing in the Security Council. Jaafari said his country was a victim of a "huge conspiracy" concocted by the United States, Europe's former colonial powers, Israel, and the armed Syrian opposition forces fighting the government.

Russia's U.N. envoy Vitaly Churkin partly agreed, saying that the Western powers are seeking to topple Assad's government.

"We think this is very dangerous," Churkin said. "They make no secret of the fact that they want regime change." Churkin also accused his Western partners of trying to bully him into rejecting a proposal by China to have Pillay expand the briefing to cover human rights abuses in Palestinian territories. "I saw every trick in the book thrown at me short of trying to strangulate the president of the council," Churkin said.

U.S. and European diplomats denied that they tried to block a discussion of Palestinian rights, which they characterized as a cynical attempt by Syria's defenders to detract attention from Damascus's conduct -- which one U.N. diplomat characterized as "the most horrifying briefing that we've had in the Security Council over the last two years."

"We find it unconscionable that the Security Council has not spoken out on this issue in recent months given everything that has happened," said Rosemary DiCarlo, the U.S. deputy permanent representative to the United Nations. "We really need to see the Security Council on the right side of history here, to stand with the Syrian people."

Privately, council diplomats noted that China and Russia, which have traditionally resisted discussions of human rights in the Security Council, have never before asked for a briefing by the human rights chief on Palestine, or on any other human rights crisis.

"This is a complete red herring," said Britain's U.N. ambassador Mark Lyall Grant.

"This was a very transparent ploy by those countries that did not want to hear Ms. Pillay's briefing on Syria. There has never been a request for her to come and brief on Palestine before," he added. "Indeed, the newfound enthusiasm on the part of some of our colleagues who have traditionally opposed any briefing by the high commissioner for human rights in the Security Council seems now to have ended, and I would certainly anticipate that Ms. Pillay will be invited a number of times back to the Security Council to brief on human rights in a number of places across the world in the future."

While the heated diplomatic rhetoric in the Security Council probably served to keep the public conversation on Syria alive, it did little to break the diplomatic logjam in the council on a way forward.

While the U.N. Security Council in August adopted a non-binding statement condemning Syria's repression, it has not been able to apply further pressure on Syria. China and Russia vetoed a U.S.- and European-backed resolution that would have threatened possible sanctions against Syria.

The prospects for a breakthrough now rest in the hands of the Arab League, which has imposed its own set of sanctions on Syria, and which will be holding a series of meetings with European governments to determine if it will back a Security Council resolution on Syria -- a move that would raise the political costs of another veto. "We are in regular consultations with the Arab ambassadors here in New York, as are our capitals with Arab capitals in the region and in the light of those decisions that they take over the next few days we shall certainly consider when, and how, and in what terms to come back to the Security Council," said Lyall Grant.

Follow me on Twitter @columlynch

Russia and China today cast a rare double veto to block a U.S. and European-backed draft resolution condemning Syria for its brutal crackdown on protesters, exposing the first major rift in the U.N. Security Council over its response to the wave of popular  uprisings that has spread across North Africa and the Middle East.

The draft garnered a paltry 9 votes in the 15-member council, the bare minimum required for adoption of a resolution, as Brazil, India, Lebanon, and South Africa expressed their unease with the Western press for sanctions by abstaining on the vote.

The Russian and Chinese actions marked the defeat of months of European-led diplomatic efforts to impose sanctions on Damascus for unleashing a violent response to the demonstrations. Syria's U.N. ambassador, Bashar Al Jafaari, reacted to the veto with a smile, and later thanked the "voices of the wise" on the council who confronted what he characterized as the colonial and military aspirations of a bloc of Western powers that is "doomed to failure."

Speaking after the vote, Russia's U.N. envoy, Vitaly Churkin, and China's U.N. ambassador, Li Boadong, expressed concern that the resolution would serve to exacerbate tensions in Syria and could serve as a pretext for possible regime change.

Churkin blasted the Western initiative as reflecting a "philosophy of confrontation" with Syria that would undermine any efforts to pursue a political settlement between the government and the opposition.

The vote triggered an angry reaction from Susan Rice, the U.S. envoy to the United Nations, and France's U.N. ambassador, Gerard Araud, who vowed that this "veto will not stop us" from continuing to press for the Bashar al-Assad government to end a crackdown that has killed nearly 3,000 people.

"The United States is outraged that this council has utterly failed to address an urgent moral challenge and a growing threat to regional peace and security," said Rice, expressing unusual emotion. "Several members have sought for weeks to weaken and strip bare any text that would have defended the lives of innocent civilians from Assad's brutality."

Rice said that the council's split provided a stark illustration of which countries supported the aspirations of pro-democracy demonstrators in Syria and the rest of the Arab world. "During this season of change, the people of the Middle East can now see clearly which nations have chosen to ignore their calls for democracy and instead prop up desperate, cruel dictators," she said. "Let there be no doubt: this is not about military intervention. This is not about Libya. That is a cheap ruse by those who would rather sell arms to the Syrian regime than stand with the Syrian people."

The clash comes weeks after the U.N. Security Council reached agreement on a statement, generally considered less forceful than a resolution, condemning Syria's conduct.

The council's European members had initially pressed for a resolution that would have imposed an arms embargo on Syria, and targeted President Assad and more than 20 of his closest associates with a series of sanctions, including a travel ban and a freeze on financial assets.

The watered-down draft resolution blocked by Russia and China today "strongly condemned the continued grave and systematic human rights violations by the Syrian authorities." It accused the regime of carrying out "arbitrary executions," torture, and enforced disappearances to end the protests.

The resolution demanded that the Syrian government immediately "cease the use of force against civilians," release political prisoners and detained protesters, and grant a range of other "fundamental freedoms" to its people. Had the resolution passed, it would have stipulated that had Syria failed to comply with the demands, within 30 days the council would have met to consider "other options" against Syria, a veiled reference to sanctions.

But the compromise was not enough to thwart the Russian veto, according to diplomats.

It was the first time one of the council's five veto-wielding powers has cast a no vote since February, when the Obama administration blocked a Palestinian-backed draft resolution denouncing Israel's settlement policy as an illegal obstacle to the Middle East peace process. It was also the first time China and Russia have cast a joint veto since July 2008, when they both vetoed a U.S.-drafted resolution condemning Zimbabwe's human rights record.

Follow me on Twitter @columlynch

The White House today announced it would impose unilateral sanctions against Syria, signaling its desire to ratchet up pressure on President Bashar al Assad to halt his crackdown on protesters.

The U.S. action drew rare praise from foreign policy conservatives, including Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, chairwoman of the House Foreign Relations Committee, who said the move "should mark the end of the failed policy of engagement and accommodation with Damascus."

But at the United Nations, the American delegation has been hesitant to press for an equally hard-line approach, fearing an aggressive push to penalize Syria in the U.N. Security Council might provoke a Russian or Chinese veto.

In late April, Chinese, Russian, Lebanese and other diplomats effectively blocked an effort by the Europeans to push through a mild, non-binding, Security Council statement condemning Syria's violent crackdown on mostly unarmed protesters.

The United States is concerned that another failed push for Security Council action on Syria would give comfort to President Assad, exposing the deep international rift over the right approach to restraining Syria.

In the absence of an American push, Britain and France have taken the lead in seeking a tougher approach. In recent days, the two European powers have sounded out other Security Council members about the prospects for the adoption of a resolution that would condemn Syria and urge it to halt further violence.

Britain and France are confident that they can muster the minimum nine votes required to adopt a modest resolution that would condemn Syria, ask it to show restraint, and encourage political reform. Britain and France also believe it may be worth risking a Russian or Chinese veto, and exposing them as defenders of a brutal Middle East regime that is resistant to democratic change sweeping the region. "There is a real risk that the council, by failing to act, is sending the signal that what Assad is doing is within the bounds of international tolerance," said one council diplomat. "We need to change that."

The United Nations maintains that more than 850 people have been killed in Syria in recent months, most of them civilian targets of a bloody government crackdown. The U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, has charged Assad with ignoring a recent call for restraint by the U.N. Human Rights Council, which condemned Syria's conduct

While the U.S. worries that forcing a losing vote may play to Assad's advantage, they are likely to support Britain and France if they decide to move ahead with a vote on a resolution, according to diplomats.

The deadlock over Syria contrasts starkly with the council's response to a Libyan crackdown on protesters in February.  In a remarkable show of unity, the 15-nation council voted unanimously on February 26 to impose sanctions on President Moammar Qadaffi's regime, and authorize an investigation by the International Criminal Court prosecutor into allegations that the regime committed crimes against humanity. On Monday, the court's chief prosecutor, Luis Moreno Ocampo, requested arrest warrants for President Qaddafi, his son Saif, and his intelligence chief, Abdullah Senoussi.

But the unity has frayed since the council passed a subsequent resolution authorizing military action to protect civilians by a vote of only 10-0, with five abstentions. Since, then China, India, Russia, and other council members have accused the United States, Britain and France of exceeding the authority granted by the council to protect civilians by taking sides in a civil war.

The effort to squeeze Syria has also been complicated by the role of the council's lone Arab state Lebanon, which lead previous efforts at the United Nations to condemn Libya and to address allegations of government repression in Yemen. But Lebanon is unwilling to back any measures against Syria, which exerts enormous influence over Lebanese affairs. And there is no sign that other Arab governments will challenge Lebanon's approach.

The current dispute over Syria "is the hang over from Libya," one council diplomat told Turtle Bay.  "China and Russia feel a bit betrayed because the coalition went further than what was in the resolution. It diminished the possibility of replicating the Libya model in Yemen and Syria," where Russia and China have blocked action.

"There is a negative vibe post-Libya in the council," the diplomat said. "you did this in Libya and now you're going to pay for it. It's a pity. There is this political game of power in the council while people are being hurt on the ground."

Follow me on Twitter @columlynch

Libyan leader Moammar Qaddafi was a foe of the International Criminal Court long before its prosecutor opened an investigation last month into possible crimes against humanity by the Libyan strongman and members of his inner circle.

For years, Col. Qaddafi has championed efforts within the African Union to undermine the Hague-based court, arguing that the tribunal unfairly targets only African countries for prosecution. During Libya's Security Council stint in 2008-2009, Qaddafi's U.N. envoy's struggled to block initiatives backing the court.

All that changed when the small Central American country, Costa Rica, led a quixotic diplomatic effort in 2008 to convince the Security Council opponents of the ICC - China, Russia and Libya - to pressure Sudan to cooperate with the tribunal, which has charged three Sudanese nationals, including Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir, with war crimes and genocide.

Rebecca Hamilton, recounts the Costa Rican effort in her new book Fighting For Darfur.  According to Hamilton, Costa Rica mounted a campaign to press for the passage of a non-binding U.N. Security Council presidential statement endorsing the ICC's investigation into Sudan's ruthless counterinsurgency campaign in Darfur, which led to the deaths of more than 300,000 Darfuris, and drove more than 2 million people from their homes.

Costa Rica's U.N. mission reasoned that the Security Council had distanced itself from the court in the years following the passage in 2005 of Resolution 1593, which authorized an ICC investigation into crimes in alleged crimes Darfur. In a June, 2008, address to the council, Costa Rica's foreign minister Bruno Ugarte scolded the council for failing to support "what, as time passes, seems to be a policy of appeasement of Khartoum and of indifference to the atrocities that are occurring in Darfur." He lined up support for the statement from 9 of the councils 15 members, enough to secure passage if none of the council's 5 permanent members cast a veto.

But Costa Rica encountered particularly stiff resistance from China, which was preparing for the upcoming Olympic Games, and Libya. Security Council statements are only adopted if each of the council's 15 members support it.

Faced with a stalemate, Costa Rica upped the ante, announcing plans to put a similarly worded, but legally-binding Security Council resolution on the matter to a vote, a maneuver that would have required China to exercise its veto to block. The United States, which had been prepared to support a presidential statement, was reluctant to support a binding resolution supporting a court it has long opposed.

"However, it was the Chinese mission that really panicked," Hamilton wrote.  "They begged Costa Rica not to present the resolution, promising to sign a president statement supporting the ICC if Costa Rica agreed not to move forward with the resolution. But, as the Costa Ricans told China, the biggest impediment to a presidential statement going through at this point was Libya. Jorge Ballestero, a diplomat at the Costa Rican mission to the United Nations, told Hamilton that China assured them: We can talk to our friends."

Shortly after, China and Libya dropped their opposition to the presidential statement which urged Sudan  "to cooperate fully with the court...in order to put an end to impunity fro the crimes committed in Darfur." Ballestero said that Costa Rica had calculated, correctly, that China could not afford to cast a veto over Darfur at a time when it was seeking to burnish its international reputation in the lead up to the Olympics.

Ironically, a top Libyan official at the time, Ibrahim Dabbashi, last month led a diplomatic revolt against Qaddafi's government, and backed efforts by the U.N. Security Council to approve an ICC investigation against Qaddafi's government.

(Disclosure: Hamilton interviewed me in connection with her book, and we once shared a byline on a story in the Washington Post  on the ICC investigation into alleged genocide in Sudan) 

Follow me on Twitter @columlynch

China has escalated a campaign of pressure against the U.N.'s chief sanctions enforcers, blocking the reappointment this month of a U.N. arms investigator who discovered Chinese bullet shells in Darfur, Sudan, in violation of a 6 year-old U.N. arms embargo.

Beijing's action could undermine the independence of numerous panels of U.N. experts responsible for enforcing U.N. sanctions and arms embargoes, according to former U.N. arms experts and diplomats. One top council diplomat called China's behavior "deplorable," saying it sends a troubling message that any U.N. expert who delves into China's role in the illicit arms trade may lose his job.

The dispute places another harsh spotlight on Chinese diplomacy at a time when President Hu Jintao is preparing to hold his final high-level summit at the White House on Wednesday with President Barack Obama. It also highlighted how China's expanding global interests, including a burgeoning small arms trade in Africa, are colliding with some U.S. priorities at the U.N. Since 2001, China has supplied Khartoum with 72 percent of its imports of small arms and light weapons, according to Sudanese customs data cited by the Small Arms Survey.

Investigations into arms trafficking have increasingly focused on China, rather than countries in the former Soviet Union, including Russia, whose nationals sold massive numbers of surplus weapons to African clients in the 1990s.

While Beijing has worked constructively with Washington on many high-priority U.N. issues, striking agreements on tough U.N. sanctions resolutions against North Korea and Iran, it has sometimes impeded efforts to ensure those very same measures are actually enforced. And it is only one of many countries that have resisted the U.N.'s requests for help in tracing the illicit import of weapons into Africa's conflict zones.

China's colleagues in the council, including the United States, have urged Beijing to avoid a confrontation with the panels, arguing it will needlessly expose itself to greater public criticism. But Chinese officials have reacted furiously when U.N. inquiries into sanctions violations have criticized or embarrassed China.

In recent months, Chinese diplomats have expressed growing impatience with numerous U.N. arms panels after they drew attention to the import of Chinese ammunition and assault weapons in several African conflict zones under U.N. arms embargo, including the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ivory Coast, and Sudan.

None of the panels' investigators has accused China or its arms manufacturers of violating U.N. sanctions, saying it is more likely that African governments or arms brokers that purchased Chinese weapons legally have illegally transferred them to armed groups in violation of U.N. regulations. Still, Beijing has been highly defensive in response to questions about the arms' origins, and provided limited responses to requests for information aimed at tracing the export history or origin of Chinese weapons.

The U.N. panel responsible for enforcing a 2004 arms embargo in Darfur, Sudan, encountered Chinese opposition late last year, after it circulated a report claiming that Chinese ammunition had made its way into Darfur, and in some cases, had actually been used in skirmishes against U.N.-African Union peacekeepers.

The report, first reported by Turtle Bay, does not accuse China of directly violating the embargo, which prohibits the import of weapons into Darfur, but allows China and other arms suppliers to sell weapons to the government in Khartoum. Nonetheless, China initially threatened to block the renewal of the panel's mandate, a move that would have effectively ended the enforcement of sanctions in Darfur. It relented under pressure from the United States and Britain, but it has succeeded in blocking the report's publication. In the past, such reports were routinely made public.

On Jan. 7, China ratcheted up pressure on the panel, placing a hold on the renewal of the panel's arms expert, Holger Anders of Germany, who provided the most detailed case that Chinese munitions had been smuggled into Darfur. Council diplomats said the hold effectively constitutes dismissal, and the U.N. secretariat has already begun a search for an arms expert to replace Anders.

A Chinese diplomat had previously challenged Anders' findings in a written statement as insufficiently supported by evidence, and questioned the panel's professionalism. Exasperated, Anders snapped backed. "He took some ammunition he had found in the field from his pocket and he threw it on the table: `You want evidence? Here's the evidence,'" Anders told the Chinese delegation, according to an official familiar with the exchange. "The Chinese were very offended. They said this is unacceptable."

The U.S. declined to comment on the cases. While Germany's U.N. ambassador, Peter Wittig, declined to comment on Anders' predicament, he said, "Part of the effectiveness of the U.N. sanctions system is the monitoring boards, and the group of experts -- they are supposed to be independent. And that independent advice and expertise is part of the whole set up, and we value that highly, and we would want to assure that this independence remains intact."

China's spokesman, Yutong Liu, declined to comment on the matter, saying, "I don't think I have any comment for you now." Anders declined a request for comment.

China has long been uneasy about the U.N.'s imposition of sanctions to coerce countries to change their behavior, but it has yielded to U.S. pressure to impose such measures to restrain proliferation of nuclear weapons, or to prevent the flow of small arms into conflict zones. It has also sought to limit the severity of measures targeting allies such as Sudan, Iran, and North Korea. Last year, it blocked for more than six months the release of a U.N. panel report suggesting North Korea may have supplied Syria, Iran, and Burma with banned nuclear technology.

But China has been growing increasingly assertive. Chinese diplomats also clashed late last year with a separate panel probing arms smuggling in Ivory Coast. That panel placed China and several other countries on a list of countries that "have given incomplete responses" to requests for information, according to an official familiar with the report.

China was one of several suppliers of small arms and light weapons to the government of Laurent Gbagbo in the Ivory Coast. But those shipments stopped after the U.N. Security Council imposed an arms embargo on the country in 2004. Still, U.N. arms investigators have discovered hundreds, and possibly thousands, of Chinese Type-56 assault rifles in the arsenal of the rebel Forces Nouvelle. According to an unpublished report, the vast majority of rifles have had their registration numbers ground off, raising suspicion that they were smuggled into the country after the imposition of sanctions.

The inspectors, however, found a handful of rifles with serial numbers still intact and asked China to help trace them to Chinese arms manufacturers. China replied by saying that most of the rifles had markings inconsistent with those of Chinese manufacturers, suggesting they were copies, and that others had been sold to a third country. But they did not reply to a request for information about the third country, and the arms inspectors are not convinced the weapons are copies.

During the panel's presentation of its evidence late last year, a Chinese diplomat, again reading from a prepared text, accused the panel of lacking "100 percent proof" that the weapons came from China, and scolded the experts findings as "unprofessional. It could have been written by young students."

"They were very, very insulting," said one official familiar with the exchange. "It was an arrogant reaction to stop the experts from what they call naming and shaming China. They want to act like a big country that has the right, through its veto, to intimidate."

Follow me on Twitter @columlynch

Navi Pillay, the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, pressed China to release this year's Nobel Peace Prize winner Liu Xiaobo, expressing hope that China will "come to recognize" the positive contribution the pro-democracy activist can make on Chinese society.

In a rare, wide-ranging press conference in Geneva, Pillay presented the U.N.'s strongest public criticism of China's imprisonment of Liu, who is serving an 11-year jail sentence for drafting the pro-democracy Charter 08 manifesto. Pillay also scolded China for placing Liu's wife, Liu Xia, under house arrest "that in my view is in contravention of Chinese national law."

The remarks by the South African rights advocate bore a stark contrast to U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's highly circumspect comments on Liu's selection as the 2010 Nobel laureate. To date, Ban has never publicly called for his release, spoken out against the house arrest of his wife, or even officially congratulated him on the prize. Ban did not raise the matter in private talks with Chinese leader Hu Jintao, reserving discussion of the politically delicate matter for talks with lower-level Chinese officials.

Chinese offficials have responded to the Nobel Committee's decision to honor Liu, whom they consider a criminal, by lobbying foreign governments not to attend this week's award ceremony. "China's foreign ministry has boasted that the peace prize has been discredited because a large number of countries agree with China and will boycott the ceremony," wrote Keith Richburg of the Washington Post. "So far, China has listed 18 other countries not attending, including fellow communist regimes Cuba and Vietnam; Arab monarchies and authoritarian regimes including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Morocco, and Tunisia; and China's allies Venezuela, Pakistan, Sudan, and neighboring Russia and Kazakhstan. Iran, Colombia and Ukraine also said their ambassadors will not attend."

Beijing has also mounted a crackdown on Chinese activists and critics inside China. Pillay said that she was "dismayed" by the recent restrictions China has placed on a "widening circle" of activists and critics of the government. "In recent weeks at least twenty activists have been arrested or detained and more than 120 other cases of house arrest, travel restrictions, forced relocations and other acts of intimidation," she said.  Pillay defended her decision not to attend the Nobel award ceremony, saying that she never received a formal invitation to the event from the Nobel Peace Prize organization.

Pillay came under fire from Yang Jianli, a U.S.-based Chinese dissident and friend of Liu Xiaobo, who said that the rights leader had rejected an invitation to attend the meeting. At the time, Pillay's spokesman defended her decision not to go on the grounds that she had a previous obligation to host a Human Rights Day event in Geneva on the same day.

Pillay also weighed in on the mounting WikiLeaks controversy, decrying the efforts of politicians and other government officials to "pressure" banks, Internet providers, and credit card companies to cut off Wikileaks, saying such measures ran afoul of free-speech protections. "I am concerned about reports of pressure exerted on private companies including banks, credit card companies and Internet service providers to close down credit lines for donations to Wikileaks, as well as to stop hosting the website," she said.

"Taken as a whole [such measures] could be interpreted as an attempt to censor the publication of information thus potentially violating WikiLeaks right to freedom of expression. If WikiLeaks has committed any recognizable illegal act then this should be handled through the legal system and not through pressure and intimidation."

The remarks follow a high-level campaign, first initiated by Sen. Joseph Lieberman, to pressure companies, universities, and other institutions to prevent Wikileaks from disseminating confidential cables. A group of anonymous computer "hacktivists" have retaliated by mounting cyber attacks on the websites of institutions that they believe have been hostile to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

"This is truly what media would call a cyber war; it's just astonishing," Pillay said. "The WikiLeaks case raises complex human rights questions about balancing freedom of information, the right of people to know, and the need to protect national security or public order. This balancing act is a difficult one... So who is best to judge or strike at the balance, but courts of law?"

Pillay said the WikiLeaks documents have provided troubling new evidence that the Obama administration "knew about the widespread use of torture by Iraqi forces and yet proceeded with the transfer of thousands" of Iraqi detainees from U.S. custody to Iraqi custody between 2009 and 2010. "This could potentially constitute a serious breach of human rights law." She said she supported the efforts of U.N. human rights researchers who are seeking clarification from the U.S. and Iraqi authorities on the use of torture.  She urged all to investigate the reports "and bring to justice those responsible for human rights abuses."

Follow me on Twitter @columlynch.

As Ban Ki-moon finalized his preparations for his visit this week to Beijing, one of his top advisors, Sha Zukang, traveled to China to present an award to a retired Chinese general who had authority over troops that fired on unarmed civilians during the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown.

Sha, the U.N. Undersecretary General for Economic and Social Affairs, presented the World Harmony Award -- a glass plaque cut in the shape of a dove -- to former Chinese Defense Minister, Gen. Chi Haotian, in honor of his unspecified contributions to world peace, according to a report in Chinese state media. The World Harmony Foundation, a private charity headed by a Chinese businessman named Frank Liu, established the award.

It was unclear whether Sha appearance at the award ceremony was a gesture aimed at showing understanding for China's troubled human rights legacy. China has faced more intense scrutiny of its human rights record since Liu Xiobao, a jailed pro-democracy advocate who participated in the Tiananmen Square protests, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. But Ban responded to the Nobel announcement by issuing a statement that implicitly questioned the wisdom of the Nobel committee's selection for the prize, and he has been reluctant to publicly raise concerns about the house detention of Liu's wife. In a meeting Monday with Chinese President Hu Jintao, Ban didn't even mention human rights.

Some officials said that Sha, a fervent Chinese nationalist, may have been engaging in a bit of pro-Chinese freelancing, or simply doing a personal favor for a wealthy businessman who has provided financial support to U.N. causes. Sha's office declined to comment, referring calls to the organizers of the award ceremony, The World Harmony Foundation, which did not respond to requests for comment. Officials in Ban's office said they were unaware of Sha's participation in the event. "This is the first we've heard of this," Martin Nesirky, the chief spokesman told Turtle Bay. "I don't have further comment for now."

U.N. officials said there is no specific rule prohibiting U.N. staff from presenting an award on behalf of a private charity. Staff rules, however, require employees "uphold and respect the principles set out in the Charter, including faith in fundamental human rights." They prohibit U.N. employees from accepting instructions from any government or from any other source external to the organization." The rules also require staff "avoid any action and, in particular, any kind of public pronouncement that may adversely reflect on their status, or on the integrity, independence and impartiality that are required by that status."

Still, the award ceremony amounted to another awkward incident for Sha, who has struggled to make the adjustment to life as an international civil servant. It also reflects poorly on Ban. Last month, Sha garnered international notoriety after criticizing the U.N. secretary general under the influence of alcohol at a U.N. retreat. The story was first reported by Turtle Bay.

Gen. Chi, a recipient of China's People's Hero award, served as the Chief of the General Staff of the People's Liberation Army during the Tiananmen crackdown, which led to the killing of as many as 3,000 civilians. Chi has publicly defended the military operation, but has denied giving the order to open fire on unarmed protesters.

"As PLA chief of staff he was present at a series of key meetings on the crackdown but he isn't recorded as saying anything," Andrew J. Nathan, a professor of Chinese politics at Columbia University. "He evidently was one of the key officers implementing the crackdown orders but I can't distinguish from these materials what specific role he played within that small group."

"I have no idea who the World Harmony Foundation is, but I suppose they represent the deft hand of the Propaganda Department in extending China's soft power," Nathan said. "I suppose this is a response to the Nobel Peace Prize."

The World Harmony Foundation was established in 2004 to "promote the ideals and principles of the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration," according to a statement on the group's web site. It is "dedicated to building Cultures of Peace and Sustainable Environments for all people."

Since 2005, the group has periodically organized ceremonies to ring the Harmony Bell for Peace, which was fashioned out of ammunition donated by the Chinese government and scrap metal collected by Chinese school children. It is trying to raise funding to build more bells.

Top U.N. officials, including former U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan and Deputy U.N. Secretary General Asha-Rose Migiro, have rung the Harmony Bell of Peace in ceremonies. In 2008, the group claimed that its founder Frank Liu was selected by an aide to Sha, Guido Bertucci, selected by a top aide to be a spokesperson for the U.N. Global Forum, a unit that promotes better public administration. There is no reference to Liu at the forum's website.

The organization has contributed money to previous U.N. causes, including a commitment to fund a 2009 U.N. concert organized by the U.N.'s public affairs and peacekeeping departments and a private group, the CultureProject. In a July 2009 letter to Liu, published by Inner City Press, the U.N. Undersecretary General for Peacekeeping Alain Le Roy, thanked Liu.

"Your support is of enormous importance to us," Le Roy wrote. "We are pleased to invite you to our Departmental Conference Room, where you will be given a complete situational briefing on the activities carried out by our peacekeeping missions around the globe. In addition, we would be pleased to offer you a tour of the Department's situation center where our staff monitors developments on the ground 24 hours a days, seven days a week."

Follow me on Twitter @columlynch

China has mounted a strenuous diplomatic campaign to block the publication of a U.N. report claiming that Chinese ammunition was shipped into Darfur, Sudan, during the past year, in clear violation of U.N. sanctions, four U.N. diplomatic sources familiar with China's effort told Turtle Bay. The findings by a U.N. Security Council-mandated "panel of experts" provide some of the strongest evidence to date that the Sudanese government in Khartoum imported arms and ammunition in violation of an arms embargo, routinely channeling them into Darfur, where it is engaged in a military campaign against local rebel groups.

The expert panel, which monitors a 6-year-old U.N. arms embargo in Sudan, presented its report in a closed-door briefing to the U.N. Security Council on October 4. The panel claimed that Sudanese forces had used more than a dozen types of Chinese ammunition in battles with Darfurian rebels in north and west Darfur over the past two years.

The report does not claim that Chinese arms dealers were aware that their munitions would make their way to Darfur. However, shell casings from Chinese ammunition were found at the sites of numerous attacks against U.N.-African Union peacekeeping forces, carried out by unidentified assailants. The casings show that the ammunition was manufactured after 2009, half a decade after the sanctions went into force. In all, the panel uncovered a total 18 varieties of shell casings, including 12 from China, four from Sudan, and two from Israel.

China responded angrily to the revelations and insisted that if the findings were not rewritten, it would block the report's release to the public, according to diplomats. "These were very concrete allegations against the Chinese," said a U.N.-based source familiar with the internal dispute over China's arms. "The Chinese don't want the report to be published."

Read on

U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said today that the U.N.'s top Chinese official, Sha Zukang, had "apologized deeply" to him for delivering an embarrassing drunken toast before the U.N.'s top brass at an Alpine retreat in Austria earlier this month, and that he hoped to put the matter behind him.

"Mr. Sha has apologized deeply in person," Ban told reporters at a press conference at U.N. headquarters. "He regretted that his behavior was not appropriate as a senior advisor. And he also knows that his behavior has embarrassed most of the [other] senior advisors at that time."

Ban said that he preferred to focus his attention on preparing for next week's U.N. General Assembly debate, which will be attended by President Barack Obama and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and a U.N. summit that will draw more than 130 world leaders to U.N. headquarters. The United Nations has "many, many things to do, so let us get on [with] all these important issues at this time," Ban said.

U.N. officials said that Ban has no immediate intention of firing Sha, the U.N. undersecretary general for Economic and Social Affairs. The former Chinese diplomat was recommended for the post by China, which has the power to veto any bid by Ban for a second term as the U.N.'s top diplomat. But a top Ban aide said he expected Sha would be moved out quietly before Ban's first term ends at the end of December 2011.

Sha, 62, offered Ban a toast last week at a retreat in the resort town Alpbach that was intended to highlight Ban's leadership qualities but which degenerated into an intoxicated rant against the United Nations, the United States, and his boss, Turtle Bay first reported last week.

"I know you never liked me Mr. Secretary-General -- well, I never liked you, either," Sha told Ban at a dinner attended by the U.N.'s top brass, according to a senior U.N. official who attended the event. "I didn't want to come to New York. It was the last thing I wanted to do. But I've come to love the U.N. and I'm coming to admire some things about you."

The blunt dinner remarks -- which came after Sha had a few drinks  -- prompted U.N. officials to try to coax Sha into putting down the microphone, according to a U.N. spokesman and several sources who were present. It didn't work. Sha continued the lengthy speech, in which he also expressed his antipathy toward the United States.

"It was a tribute gone awry," said a senior U.N. official who was at the dinner. "It went on for about ten or fifteen minutes but it felt like an hour."

Follow me on Twitter @columlynch