Here is something you won’t find in any western media. Part of the actual Russian speech or “Explanation of Vote” for their veto of the UN Resolution on Syria. It is worth reading. It is my own translation from the website of the Russian mission to the UN. There will be an official UN translation circulated in New York, but there will not be major differences:
“The situation in Syria cannot be considered without reference to events in Libya. The international community should be alarmed at statements to the effect that the implementation of Security Council resolutions on Libya, as read by NATO, provide a model for future NATO action for the implementation of the “responsibility to protect”. One can easily imagine that tomorrow this “exemplary model” of “joint defence” can start to be introduced into Syria.
Let me be clear to all; Russia’s position with regard to the conflict in Libya in no way stems from any special ties with the Gadaffi regime, to the extent that several States represented around this table had a great deal warmer relationships with the Gadaffi regime than Russia. It is the people of Libya who have determined the destiny of Gadaffi.
Im the view of Russia, in that case members of the UN Security Council twisted the provisions of Security Council resolutions to give them the opposite of their true meaning.
The requirement for an immediate ceasefire instead resulted in large-scale civil war, with humanitarian, social, economic, and military consequences which have extended far beyond Libya’s frontiers.
The no-fly zone resulted in the bombing of oil installations, television stations and other civilian targets.
The arms embargo resulted in a naval blockade of the West coast of Libya, including for humanitarian supplies.
The “Benghazi crisis” has resulted today in the devastation of other cities. Sirte, Bani Walid, and Sephi.
This then is the “Exemplary model”. The world must abolish such practices once and for all.”
This post of mine said almost exactly the same thing, and incidentally is both my most viewed and most linked post this year. The fact is that what the Russians say is precisely true. NATO action in Libya went way beyond what the Security Council had actually authorised, which was a no fly zone to protect civilians, a ceasefire, and negotiations between the parties.
Having absolutely abused UNSCR 1973, plainly NATO was seriously damaging the ability of the Security Council to work together in future, and making quite certain that China and Russia would not for many years agree to any SC Resolutions which might be open to similar abuse. I know the American Envoy to the UN, Susan Rice, and have in the past worked with her and had great respect for her; she was genuinely committed to the fight against apartheid. But her histrionic walkout in reaction to a Russian statement which was both plainly true, and an eminently forseeable result of Amercia’s own rash actions, was just pathetic.
Question on internal law: do UN resolutions have an expiry date? That is, since UNSCR 1973 has been granted, can NATO continue bombing forever under this mandate?
The mandate did expire but it was extended there were several all out pushes(carpet bombings,mercenary landings etc) to wrap everything up before that date also Sarkozy wanted a victory parade before Bastille day.In fact the whole resolution is complete and utter nonsense the campaign was planned well beforehand and the invasion(sorry humanitarian intervention/kinetic sculpture/armed conflict) goes ahead anyway regardless of the fig leaf.
I don’t see the problem in getting rid of a beast like Gadaffi. One has to remember that some NATO countries were already involved by supporting him. After all we were buying his oil thus pumping money into his coffers, and some former senior western politicians and MI6 seem to have been working quite actively in his support. Besides I recall the innocent British policewoman murdered two decades ago and the Lockerbie victims. Two wrongs may not usually make a right; but in Gadaffi’s case I think they do.
Article by Mahdi Darius Nezmoyha on the same subject I really admire Mahdi for maintainig independent journalism throughout this conflict.http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=26774.
Mr Murray,
.
If I may at all I wish to disagree with you on this one. Here is much more in Russian/Chinese vetoing resolution on Syria than any fear of NATO killing Syrians. As you well know Russian government itself brought much more destruction to its own population in Chechnya and no doubt China will do the same if anything ‘goes wrong’ in Kashgar. This as Russian/Chinese response to the Andijan Tragedy can only be viewed from the prism of geopolitical struggle over influence. Both Russia and China will always support any regime that allows them to participate in money making or money laundering or allows them to use territory for geopolitical influence. What we are heading towards is new Cold War with US/EU and probably India on one side and Russia/China on another. There will be much more bloody proxy wars between or within dictatorships and this will least benefit poorest nations.
.
As for UN I think it is very bleeding obvious that nowadays UN continue to serve only its 5 masters who are permanent members of the security council. It is hard to find any more useLESS organisation than UN today.
.
Regime change is always a struggle. No Assad or Karimov will give up their powers without having soaked it in human blood. But in Syria at present the same things are going on as were in Andijan and Russia and China once again prolonging lifespan of another brutal dictatorship.
Roderick, you seem to be conflating ‘Gadaffi’ with ‘Libya’. What is the ‘right’ that is made by the killing of children in Sirte? Even leaving aside the fact that there are questions over who killed PC Fletcher, and, to say the least, doubts over Libyan involvement in Lockerbie*, how many more people than that have been killed by NATO in Libya? Or do you think 300 white Europeans are worth more than several tens of thousands of Arab and black Africans?
.
Your principle error is to think that what NATO has done to Libya is ‘getting rid of Gadaffi’. It’s not. What they’re doing is ‘taking control of Libya’. What do you mean by ‘beast’? Do you actually know anything about this matter?
.
* see http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n18/gareth-peirce/the-framing-of-al-megrahi
Craig
Your comments about Susan Rice lead me to ask something which has probably been in many people’s minds. Where politicians seem genuinely decent people, and yet go along with crimes like this, do they really not understand what they’re doing? In other words, are they stupid or are they wicked?
.
My conclusion is that the two overlap, and generally there’s an element of each. But there are cases like Obama where it’s very hard to say he’s stupid. Is he not paying attention? Does he think US hegemony is worth the price? I know politicians are constrained by electoral and other practical considerations, but even if they have a lot on their plate and accept unquestioningly what they’re told about ‘OMG, Mr President, there’s going to be a massacre, we gotta DO something’, by the time it comes to bombing TV studios and hospitals and massacring the people of Sirte, don’t they pause and say, hold on, this isn’t right?
.
What goes on in these people’s heads?
Anon – When you pump oil trillions into the pockets of a dictator like Gadaffi, you are already involved with him – they use this money to buy arms, to hire mercenaries and secret police thugs, to buy support from other politicians, army officers, bureaucrats and judges. Add to that the support that former top NATO politicians were giving him covertly (for a fee perhaps) and MI6’s support. This was just a case of two wrongs making a right in my view.
As for the Lockerbie killings, I am not suggesting that the evidence was there to honestly convict al-Megrahi. Indeed, it does seem quite likely that he was framed . Not to suggest that Gadaffi wasn’t behind the Lockerbie mass murders – rather just to suggest that though they got the right principle (Gadaffi), they framed the operative. I am sorry Anon, but I am absolutely bloody appalled that senior former politicians and MI6 were involved just a few months ago supporting this monster Gadaffi. I do hope that Libya ends up with its people running things and not BP/MI6.
Uzbekinthe UK,
I don’t disagree at all – I am not arguing that Russian motives are pure. But by dishonouring the Libyan UNSCR NATO have given them a huge amount of credible argument at the UN, and are now suffering the diplomatic consequences.
Arguably, that could feed in to the several motives they had for not really trying to stop NATO in Libya…
How much of Susan Rice’s job is about Israel?’
by Philip Weiss on September 20, 2011
.
“A lot.” (Uriel Heilman at JTA had an interview with Rice and asked her that very smart question. Another price we pay.)
.
Chaos4700 September 20, 2011 at 11:12 pm
What’s she going to do? If she doesn’t do what she’s paid to do, the people who hired her will fire her, right?
What, did you think she was working for the United States? That’s a novel idea now, isn’t it.
.
Stating the obvious
http://mondoweiss.net/2011/09/how-much-of-susan-rices-job-is-about-israel.html
“the several motives”
.
Could you expand on that at all?
.
There’s no direct mention of Libya in the equivalent Chinese statement.
http://www.china-un.org/chn/hyyfy/t865014.htm
‘The dissolution of Syria and Iraq later on into ethnically or religiously unqiue areas such as in Lebanon, is Israel’s primary target on the Eastern front in the long run, while the dissolution of the military power of those states serves as the primary short term target. Syria will fall apart, in accordance with its ethnic and religious structure, into several states such as in present day Lebanon, so that there will be a Shi’ite Alawi state along its coast, a Sunni state in the Aleppo area, another Sunni state in Damascus hostile to its northern neighbor, and the Druzes who will set up a state, maybe even in our Golan, and certainly in the Hauran and in northern Jordan. This state of affairs will be the guarantee for peace and security in the area in the long run, and that aim is already within our reach today.14’
.
A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties
by Oded Yinon (with a foreword by, and translated by Israel Shahak)
.
Foreword
The following essay represents, in my opinion, the accurate and detailed plan of the present Zionist regime (of Sharon and Eitan) for the Middle East which is based on the division of the whole area into small states, and the dissolution of all the existing Arab states. I will comment on the military aspect of this plan in a concluding note. Here I want to draw the attention of the readers to several important points:
/….
http://cosmos.ucc.ie/cs1064/jabowen/IPSC/articles/article0005345.html
As regards Lockerbie I cant imagine why Gadaffi would shoot down a plane in retaliation for the shooting down of an Iranian airliner.Libya has always been easy to bombhttp://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article6797831.ece…..
“Arguably, that could feed in to the several motives they had for not really trying to stop NATO in Libya…”
.
You spotted that one Craig, well done. Now, don`t forget this one
http://uk.ask.com/wiki/Tartus?qsrc=3044#Russian_naval_base
Rejoice – Craig Murray and the lovely Putin cut off the Syrian nose to spite the British, French and American face.
There are many dubious propositions in the Russian argument.
The powers in the Kremlin know precisely what to say to appeal to western critical voices. Their aim is to weaken western institutions so as to create a vast Eurasian space dominated by the Kremlin, and they hate democratic governments.
Their real fear is their own power. That is why they don’t want any more uprisings against tyranny in Syria. Their declared arguments are not real arguments. They are just words. They are not in a position to object in any principled way to western ‘aggression.’ They lack the illocutionary force though they are granted rights in the security council.
DLJ
Do you seriously contend that the Russiams are never right about anything? That is a ludicrous as to contend that the US is always right about everything. It reminds me of the FCO argument that I could not possibly point to torture because I had weakness for women and night clubs.
Now what is actually wrong about the Russian argument above – I eman the argument itself, not who is making it.
@DLJ – you might want to read this briefly, it speaks to Craig’s objection:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum
They may be right about certain facts, though the full sorry justification is entirely constructed to talk up the illusory prospects for some kind of dialogue and to shift responsibility for the violence from Assad and his goons to bandits who are, it is suggested, smuggling in weapons and causing the trouble. This is really ludicrous, when all the world world knows that the Assad regime is extremely cruel and barbaric, off the scale in fact, except if you compare it to Putin’s beloved KGB, whose litany of cruelty will probably never be surpassed in all of human history.
Ok, so we will see how Russia’s oh so principled stance contributes ‘to the maintenance of international peace and security.’ Their ‘victory’ at the SC is completely pyrrhic, as is the crowing on this blog of these anti-western obsessives, conspiracy nuts. My prediction is that the Russian approach to Syria will fail, the conflict will not stop, and that the issue of Syria will appear and reappear in the corridors of the UNSC until Assad falls. Just like Putin’s, his system is doomed to collapse.
It’s a bit ‘shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted’, isn’t it? Russia could have vetoed UNSC 1973, as could have China, but they bottled it, only abstaining, thus letting it be carried.
Any ideas as to why they didn’t use their veto?
Thanks Craig for the translation.
The Russians must have been sorely tempted to allow NATO once more to waste its substance and credibility- amongst sensible people- by letting it have its silly way in Syria.
After all part of the reason why the whole Arab world is shaking is that 99% of the population understand that US/NATO motives are never good. This makes any regime supporting the West, dependent upon it because it immediately loses any credibility domestically. It was the counter revolution which spread a movement that the revolution started: the prospects of America’s allies in Saudi Arabia, the Gulf emirates and Jordan have never been so dim. And the attack on Libya, as well as the subservience towards Israel, is a large part of the reason why.
Interestingly the uzbaki government and obama administration recently renewed their cozy relationship. There are now moves to reopen american base in uzbekistan. Russia’s response to this was cold, and pro kremlin channell rt has aired rather unique criticism towards uzbeks
http://rt.com/news/uzbekistan-child-labor-cotton-987/
Hullo Craig,
.
Hats off to Susan Rice’s commitment to whatever, but in the world of the sharp-end-of-the-stick she will do precisely what her masters order, and commitment be damned. A fig for it.
.
And her masters are whom? Who controls US foreign policy? Or to put it another way, can anyone remember the last time the US did something that was in their own interests? How are US interests served by bringing down Assad? Who does have an interest in Syria’s destabilisation/balkanisation?
.
Again the US golem lurches off for another pointless war, with no reasoning in its head beyond, “Well, if I’m doing it, it must be right.” Eliyahu nods his head. And Susan Rice walks out.
The Russian argument is strong. Doesn’t get around the fact that the Russians have a very dubious record when it comes to support for the Assad clan in Syria. Who’s side are you on, Craig? The protestors or the Syrian government?
Whoops – “whose not “who’s”
Hopefully one day soon the US will be isolated enough for Russia to submit a resolution referring aggression charges against President Obama to the ICC, forcing the US to veto it, and organizing a 377 ‘Uniting for Peace’ resolution in the General Assembly condemning his criminal war and war crimes.
This isn’t team sports, Alan, there are no sides to which you can confidently throw your support and eventually argue that – in the end – you were right all along.
.
Why do you assert an either-or between support for the protestors OR support for the Syrian government, based on whether or not the Russian argument happens to be true? This is known as a False Dichotomy, a well known refuge of the intellectually dishonest.
*
This might interest those with a slight bent towards logic/maths. What AC is proposing here would be the following:
.
We have – by AC logic – an _exclusive OR_ between the follow:
.
Either : (Support for protestors) AND (Russians are wrong/Bad)
OR : (Support for Syrian dictators) AND (Russians are right/Good).
.
To make it more clear, Alan Campbell is pretending that you have to do one of the following
(a) support Syrian protestors and totally condemn the Russians in general, and as a consequence their argument too, and in conclusion take it take we, NATO and the US were right all along;
OR
(b) support the Russian argument, drag all their baggage into the equation as something you suddenly need to defend too, and consequently support the oppression of the Syrian protestors.
.
This is an example of a false dichotomy. It is also a textbook example of intellectual dishonesty, because Campbell cannot claim outright stupidity and ignorance in the posing of such a question, which would be the most generous interpretation of his post.
Dear Craig,
Could you clarify something for me? The media is saying that the text of the draft Resolution had been watered down to remove all references to sanctions. I have read somewhere (I have forgotten where) that whilst the text does not refer to sanctions as such it does refer to Article 41 of the UN Charter, which is the Article that gives the Security Council the power to impose sanctions. In other words contrary to what the media seem to be saying the proposed Resolution would have opened the way to sanctions and especially in the light of what happened with Resolution 1973 this was probably the reason why the Russians and the Chinese vetoed it and why the Brazilians, Indians and South Africans refused to support it. If this is correct then the claim that the Resolution was watered down to remove all reference to sanctions is to put it mildly disingenuous and what would appear to have happened is that the words were adjusted but the meaning and purpose of the Resolution were unaffected. It so then the story of the Resolution is being falsely spun.
Turning to another point I understand that the Americans and British walked out in response to the comments of the Syrian ambassador not the Russian ambassador. Having said this the spectacle of senior diplomats representing Great Powers storming out in a huff from a meeting of the Security Council of the United Nations seems to me childish and petulant. It smacks of a spoilt child throwing a tantrum when its lollipop is taken away.
‘ The world must abolish such practises once and for all.’
What? Blatant lying which discredits world powers? We will all be expected to be overjoyed when the apparatus of the New Masonic World Order, which will we are all going to believe in and vote for, takes over. When it comes, we will be crying for a bit of good old-fashioned hypocrisy, lies and spin.
Call me an eco-nutter if you like, but at what point dare we stop and say that bombing the shit out of oil-rich countries to keep the lorries running on the M6, and whitewashing it by supporting solar microgeneration, is total lies and hypocrisy and spin. Russia can pick up Brownie points for talking about civilians in Libya and Syria, fuck ’em. But when are we going to tie up and gag co-gay-antique-dealers-from Brighton Cameron and Clegg for wheeling out all this crap about green Britain. It makes you sick to listen.
Dear Craig,
I just want to add one point. Some of your respondents have expressed cynicism about Russia’s motives. However Brazil, India and South Africa, all of which are democracies and none of which have the same close relations with Syria that Russia does, also refused to support the Resolution. The brief summaries of what their ambassadors said that I found on the UN website suggest that their objections to the Resolution were essentially the same as Russia’s.
@ Uzbek in UK,
You say: ” As for UN I think it is very bleeding obvious that nowadays UN continue to serve only its 5 masters who are permanent members of the security council. It is hard to find any more useless organisation than UN today.”
But, if the UN as it exists were abolished tomorrow – don’t you think that immediately thereafter the world would be seeking a world body to perform similar and necessary functions and a role in the global community?
Surely, the Russians have their interests – a base in Syria; the Chinese too – some 35,000 present in Libya at the start of the Libyan war; the US and NATO – some contracts coming up for renewal and Gadaffi not shaping up to be good “house boy” – so bomb him out – install puppets – get the oil.
Don’t you believe that all powers have their angles and their interests?
You go on to say, ” Regime change is always a struggle. No Assad or Karimov will give up their powers without having soaked it in human blood” So I ask:-
i) By what lawful authority was this regime change authorised – surely not UN Resolutions 1970 – or – 1973?
ii) With what popular support is a new “bombed in” regime to be able to sustain itself or come out victorious in an election – if the base popular support is not there in Libya to either support it in the majority – or – elect it freely and fairly into government?
iii) What legitimacy can conceivably be conferred on a process where bombs take the lives of Libyan civilians, when the West has confiscated billions, and drawn more blood than ever was occasioned at the point of the pre-emptive strike by NATO that commenced the war and has stirred civil war?
I merely observe – it is an ill war that bombs no one good.
But, Uzbek, all said – and still more war to be done – I do agree with you on one thing – it is indeed a bloody situation, by way of what you so accurately observed – “having soaked it in human blood” ( we can agree on the “it” being – Libya.