Гольцева О.Ю. Международное право в официальных документах. Под ред. И.А. Горшеневой

OVER TO YOU

Study the information of the chart. What type of conflicts it? Why do such conflicts appear? What it the way to settle such conflicts? Are there any peaceful means to do it?

Exercise 15. Give the Russian equivalents for the following word combination.

Exchange fire across the border, a deliberate provocation, heavily fortified, demilitarized zone, state of alert, rivals, to host a meeting, deny the charges, torpedo warships, to reject talks, to ease tension.

Exercise 16. How do you understand the idiom

“to rule out a possibility”? Look it up in a dictionary, if necessary.

282

Exercise 17. Read the article.

U.S. envoy: Nuke talks won't resume unless N. Korea is serious

By Yoko Wakatsuki, CNN

Tokyo, Japan (CNN) – The United States needs evidence of a serious commitment from North Korea before resuming six-party talks aimed at resolving the North's nuclear arms standoff, the U.S. special envoy on North Korea policy said Wednesday in Tokyo.

"We are looking for evidence that North Korea now regards the possibility of negotiations seriously. We are not interested in negotiation just for the sake of talking," envoy Stephen Bosworth said. "We want talks to lead to specific and concrete results".

Bosworth made his comments before leaving Tokyo for Beijing, China, for the last leg of his trip in Asia. He visited South Korea and Japan to meet with his counterparts to discuss denuclearization and other policies related to North Korea.

The six-party talks will not resume in the next few weeks, because building a consensus among the nations will take time, he said.

The talks involve the United States, North Korea, China, South Korea, Japan and Russia. Dialogue halted last year after the U.N. Security Council condemned North Korea's launch of a long-range rocket, saying it violated a resolution banning ballistic missile testing. The North expelled U.S. nuclear experts and U.N. nuclear inspectors after the rebuke.

Signs point to improved relations between South and North Korea, Bosworth said.

The bilateral relationship had worsened with the sinking of a South Korean warship in March. Seoul blamed the North for the sinking. A South Korean report, whose findings have been endorsed by the United States, say a

283

North Korean submarine sank the Cheonan warship with a torpedo, killing 46 sailors. North Korea denies sinking the ship.

Pyongyang on Friday proposed to Seoul the resumption of cross-border reunions of families separated by the Korean War, according to the Yonhap news agency.

Exercise 18. Find in the text the English equivalents of the following word combinations.

Доказательство серьезности намерений, возобновить переговоры, шестисторонние переговоры, разрешить ядерное противостояние, специальный представитель, ради того, чтобы, последний этап поездки, достигнуть консенсуса, приостановить диалог, осудить запуск ракеты дальнего радиуса действия, нарушить резолюцию, потопить военный корабль, запретить испытания оружия, выслать экспертов, упрек, наладившиеся отношения, двусторонние отношения, винить за…, поддерживать/одобрять.

Exercise 19. Cover the article above and fill in the necessary prepositions.

1.The US needs evidence ___ a serious commitment

_____ North Korea before resuming six-party talks aimed

___ resolving the North's nuclear arms standoff.

2.We are looking ___ evidence that North Korea now regards the possibility of negotiations seriously.

3.We are not interested ___ negotiation just ____ the sake of talking.

4.We want talks to lead ___ specific and concrete results.

5.He visited South Korea to discuss policies related ___

North Korea.

6.Pyongyang on Friday proposed ___ Seoul the resumption of cross-border reunions of families separated by the Korean War, according ___ the Yonhap news agency.

284

Exercise 20. Read another article on the topic and try to predict whether this conflict can lead to some serious armed conflict or even worse – a war?

29 October 2010 Last updated at 11:10 GMT

North Korea troops 'fire into South Korea'

North and South Korean troops have exchanged fire across the border, South Korean officials say.

North Korea fired two rounds towards a frontline unit and South Korean soldiers returned fire three times.

The shooting occurred in Hwacheon, some 90km (56 miles) north-east of the South's capital, Seoul, according to reports from South Korea's YTN TV.

Officials say it was not clear if North Korea's initial shots were a deliberate provocation.

The border between the two Koreas is one of the most heavily fortified in the world, with many thousands of troops stationed on either side of a demilitarised zone.

There have been frequent incidents at sea, but this is believed to be the first cross-border shooting on land since 2006.

South Korea's military is currently on its highest state of alert, as the capital prepares to host a meeting of world leaders from the G20 group of nations on 11 and 12 November.

A spokesperson for the Joint Chiefs of Staff in Seoul said that no South Koreans were hurt in the exchange of fire, AFP reports.

"There were no more shots afterwards. We are now closely watching their movements," the unnamed spokesperson said.

The BBC's John Sudworth, in Seoul, says that the exchange appears to have been a small incident which did not cause any damage.

South Korean officials are not ruling out the possibility that the initial shot from the northern side of the border was accidental rather than deliberate, our correspondent adds.

285

Tensions between the two rivals have been high since the South accused the North of torpedoing one of its warships in March, with the loss of 46 lives. Pyongyang denies the charge.

Earlier on Friday the North warned that relations with its neighbour would face a "catastrophic impact" if South Korea continued to reject talks aimed at easing tension.

The first round of discussions in two years ended without progress in September after Seoul demanded an apology from Pyongyang for the warship sinking.

* Pyongyang [ˌpjɔŋ'jæŋ] – Пхеньян (столица Корейской Народно-Демократической Республики

Exercise 21. What do you know about NATO? What is the role of this organization in the modern world and prevention of armed conflicts? Answer the following questions.

1.What do the letters NATO stans for?

2.What was the purpose of Nato creation?

3.What aim is officially proclaimed by Nato?

4.What are the Nato members supposed to doin case of an armed attack against any Nato member?

5.What was the Nato’s first non-european mission?

6.What alliance was opposing Nato in the Cold war period? When was it formed and what countries constituted it?

7.In which way did the structure of Nato changed after the collapse of the USSR? Did the strategy of the alliance change?

Exercise 22. Study the profile. Is there a place for

Russia in the structure of this organization? Could we benefit from joining Nato? What are the relations between Nato and Russia?

Applicant nations: Bosnia, FYR Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia

287

taken by Nato, and the first time it had used force against a sovereign state without UN approval. A 16,000-strong Nato peacekeeping force remains in Kosovo.

In 2003 Nato took its operations outside Europe for the first time when it assumed strategic command of the UNmandated peacekeeping force in and immediately around the Afghan capital, Kabul.

Changing relationships

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Nato embarked on a series of steps designed to build new relationships with former Warsaw Pact countries and particularly with Russia, which was profoundly suspicious of the alliance's plans to expand eastwards.

In 1994 Nato offered former Warsaw Pact members limited associations in the form of the Partnership for Peace programme, allowing them to participate in information sharing, joint exercises and peacekeeping operations.

But this simply appeared to confirm Russian fears that Nato posed a creeping threat to its security.

The Nato-Russia Permanent Joint Council was established in May 1997 to give Russia a consultative role in discussion of matters of mutual interest. While Moscow was given a voice, it rarely felt that it was really listened to.

Russia's fears intensified when in 1999 the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland became the first former Soviet bloc states to join Nato, bringing the alliance's borders 400 miles closer to the Russian frontier.

Aftermath of 11 September

The 11 September 2001 attacks on targets in the US are widely seen as a pivotal moment for Nato. The US did not involve the alliance in the international military campaign which followed, even though Secretary-General George Robertson quickly invoked Article Five of the Nato constitution declaring an attack on one member to be an attack on all.

288

Russia's supportive reaction following the attacks proved to be the catalyst for a thaw in relations with Moscow. The establishment of the Nato-Russia Council was agreed in May 2002. This body gives Russia an equal role with the Nato countries in decision-making on policy to counter terrorism and other security threats.

However, the relationship with Russia continues to be problematical. Russia was unhappy that the Nato expansion of early 2004 – when seven new states were admitted – meant that the alliance had reached its borders.

Relations with Russia took a marked turn for the worse after the brief Russo-Georgian war of August 2008. Nato had deferred discussion of Georgian (and Ukrainian) membership until December, but announced that cooperation with Russia would be suspended until Moscow pulled all its troops out of Georgia.

The relations between the Russian and US leaderships became less confrontational after Barack Obama assumed the US presidency in January 2009, and Nato announced in March 2009 that it would be resuming high-level contacts with Russia.

Nato members are preparing to meet in Portugal for what is being billed as one of the most crucial summits in the alliance's 61-year history.

The 28 member states are hoping to reach a "New Strategic Concept" to shape the way Nato defends itself against threats over the next decade.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev will also attend, in a sign of warming ties.

Afghanistan will be top of the agenda, with plans to bring Nato's combat operations to an end by 2014.

Afghan President, who is scheduled to address the summit on Saturday, has said he wants Nato to hand back control of the country by the end of 2014 – a deadline the US has described as realistic but not set in stone.

Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said the deadline had existed for some time as "an aspirational goal"

289

but that this did not mean all coalition forces would have to leave by that date.

The Lisbon talks are expected to shape the future of Nato at a time of shrinking budget cuts and expanding challenges, says BBC defence correspondent Caroline Wyatt.

Nato Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen told the BBC on Friday that a security handover to Afghan forces was realistic by the end of 2014.

Mr Medvedev will meet the leaders on Saturday, becoming the first Russian president to attend a Nato summit since his country's conflict with Georgia in 2008.

The alliance is keen to build bridges with Moscow, and a key issue at the summit will be agreeing plans for a joint study of missile defence.

The efforts have been aided by US President Barack Obama's insistence that the US will ratify a new nuclear arms treaty with Russia.

Moscow is also promising logistical help for Nato in Afghanistan by easing restrictions on transit routes into the country.

OVER TO YOU

1.What does Nato hope to achieve?

2.Is Nato losing the Afghan war?

3.What are the relations between Nato and UN?

Think these three questions over and write an essay to express your opinion.

Exercise 24. Read this interview with the armed conflicts researcher.

a.-Is armed conflict changing? If so, how?

– I am hesitant to answer “yes,” to this question. Certainly, there are evolving trends in the form and function of war – from things as obvious as the disappearance of the custom of declaring wars to things as subtle as fighting

290

wars with dollars not guns, and much in between – new weapons, new tactics (including those which would not traditionally count as “armed conflict”), etc. Still, saying that there is a “new” form of armed conflict/war risks permitting policy-makers to follow the example of G. W. Bush, coming up with a “new” (and more politically convenient) set of analytical tools and ethical guidelines.

b.- What conflicts in particular do you see as representative of new forms of armed conflict?

– The economic sanctions regime against Iraq, 19902003, the “war on terror,” 2001-present,the 1991 Gulf

War, the 1994 Rwandan “civil war,” the Vietnam war ….

c.-How have these changes affected men and women and girls and boys differently?

– Sure. Warfare generally – be it an “old” World War I or a “new” war like the “war on terror” – affects men and women and girls and boys differently, because they are situated differently in the belligerent societies.

Economic warfare affects women differently, because women lose their jobs first in economic hard times, because gender-specific goods (like pre-natal vitamins) are often the first to leave markets, because women are most likely to suffer as a health system declines, because women are most likely to eat last when there is not enough food to go around, because sexual violence and domestic violence increase in times of conflict and deprivation, and suffering law enforcement systems do less to combat them…

The war on terror has gender-differential impacts as well. Women have been used as a casus belli (one of the justifications for the invasion of Afghanistan was protecting women from the Taliban) but are anything but safer in the aftermath of the war on terror. For example, women have been less safe in many respects in “postwar” Iraq. (New) participating private military corporations have a higher level of sexual abuse than traditional