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.
“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..”
Sadly those countries, South Africa in particular,can almost always be relied upon to back dictatorships.
Just look at India’s record on Burma; South Africa on Zimbabwe.
That’s a rather silly point, Alan. India shares borders with Burma, and S.A. with Zimbabwe. Obviously they need to be cautious about their relationships with their neighbours.
The outrageousness of Iraq Afghanistan Philistine and now Libya, and the activities of the Masonic Zorld Order like the UN and NATO and the USSR in Chechnya, is used as a form of essence of evil in black magic to de-stabilise the psychology of ordinary citizens.
We are unable to take in the vast complicity of sheer evil that our familiar politicians are participating in. The Libyans are the victims, but we JoeBloggs ordinary people are the target of the Zorld Order psy-ops game. We feel powerless in the face of unbelievable greed, corruption and collective state violence.
To compound the problem, within the very institutions that ordinary people turn to for support, such as ‘democracy’ the church, or even Islam, we find that they are run by psychopaths of the same kind. The self-apppointed leaders of Islam run programs of spying, deception, bad behaviour to psychologically stress out ordinary believers and prepare them acting out their Islamist agenda. The church is and always has been and always will be visibly corrupt to all observers who have a shred of integrity. The idea of encapsulating the Holy Spirit into drinkable blood/wine is about as Satanic a ritual you ever could find.
Mind control is the essence of the raw game of politics.
The bombs are there to intimidate us, and make us more compliant to the financial lobotomy, the removal of all economic power, or intellectual power, from us the citizens to the grasping hands of Thatcher’s spawn of Zio=banking Masonic ghouls.
“India shares borders with Burma, and S.A. with Zimbabwe. Obviously they need to be cautious about their relationships with their neighbours…”
Oh, of course. Silly me. That makes supporting dictators alright then.
South Africa’s refusal to let the Dalai Lama in to visit Desmond Tutu was pretty disgusting.
Seems to me the Libyan adventure was seen by Cameron and Sarkozy as an ‘easy win – low hanging fruit’ a way to gain kudos as low cost. Would have worked had Libya been like Egypt but instead of giving up once it was obvious Gadaffi was a harder nut it was ‘I’ve started so I’ll finish’ and it’s not finished yet.
As for Syria, I cannot understand why Assad made the mistake of severe repression. There are plenty of ways to give the illusion of democracy without giving up real power. Perhaps the Russians will help Assad re-establish his severely dented credibility. Syria certainly does not need NATO sticking its nose in. Then there is the question of just how free do we Westerners (and Easterners) want oil-producing countries to be?
pretty disgusting
.
As was Barry making him leave through the garbage heap.
.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/back_door_dalai_not_so_grand_exit_MHe5umYwtJffh3pymuRIJN
The UN has always been a toy of the US.I don’t think it should surprise anyone that when the US does not get its way,it stops playing.I find it pathetic however that diplomats walk out and do not listen to argument and speeches from countries that they don’t agree with unless they are only there to dictate.
How resolution 1973 could be stretched to bomb and kill one side in a civil war is beyond me.Why the UN has permitted their resolution to be misinterpreted on this scale is also a mystery,unless they support the bombing of civilian infrastructure and the civilian population that do not support the side which NATO has armed and supported.
The hypocrisy of the US anger re: the resolution for Syria after all their vetoes in the past is laughable.I feel for the Syrian people being the pawns at the UN,but I trully believe that the US is as interested in the civilians of Syria,as they were for those of Libya,Somalia,Afghanistan,Iraq,Yemen and Pakistan where they are currently bombing and killing them or the civilians of Vietnam that were carpet bombed in the 70’s.
In the end there will be less killing if the US(NATO) stay out of their business.
This morning Rosemary Hollis (now of City University and previously of Chatham House) was the warm up act on Radio 4 Today for Tzipi Livni who is meeting Hague in London. Syria was demonized. Evan Davis interviewed Livni who has escaped arrest for her war crimes in Cast Lead since the ConDems changed the law on universal jurisdiction. The Arab Spring was discussed and its effect on Israel. She held forth with the usual script …… little Israel surrounded by enemies, blah blah. Davis had the gall to wish her a good time whilst she was in London. No doubt she will be visiting the luxury goods purveyors in Bond Street and Knightsbridge.
.
Looking for the link which is not up yet I see I missed this yesterday on the same programme.
.
0745
Thought for the Day with Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks.
!!
The war criminals are also hypocrites.
.
TEL AVIV, Israel (Ma’an) — Israeli officials will temporarily lift a ban on agricultural exports from the Gaza Strip to allow the entry of palm fronds used to mark a Jewish holiday, a newspaper report said Wednesday.
/….
http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=426506
From the MediaLens editors –
.
Guardian’s ‘neutral’ take on Syria resolution
Posted by The Editors on October 6, 2011, 8:37 am
,
Ian Black:
.
‘This is bad news for protesters in Syria, where at least 2,700 have been killed since March, and bad news for those who yearn for a UN that can prove effective, if not in tackling all the world’s ills at once, then at least in responding to one of its most glaring and urgent injustices.
.
‘The chorus of condemnation from western capitals sounded genuine. Susan Rice, Barack Obama’s ambassador to the UN, expressed outrage. “This will be seen in the region as a decision to side with a brutal regime rather than with the people of Syria,” complained William Hague, “and will be a bitter blow to all those Syrians who have implored the international community to take a stand.” France’s Alain Juppé found the veto “deplorable”. Privately, but fairly openly, the Russians were accused of being hypocritical and cynical.’
.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2011/oct/05/syria-protests-un-analysis
.
Compare with Craig Murray:
.
{http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2011/10/diplomatic-blowback/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter}
Enough to make you sick hearing twinkle tits ask bomber Lipni noncholant questions, not a single challenging issue, as if Israel is at ease with itself and has no worries at all.
Any Israeli politicians, serving or not, can come here, knock on BBC doors and get instant service from our public broadcaster. Now cue any other EU politician and then wait for Evans lay into them hell for leather, just as he is told by his handlers.
Did not bother to listen to Lord schmoozer Sucks ‘thoughts for our day to come’. Lets say I should be sorry about my typo’s, but…..
The trouble is with the United Nations, like the League of Nations before it, it is only effective as the member states allow it to be. Member countries who don’t comply, like the UK and US in Iraq, Israel in Palestine, Nazi Germany in Czechoslovakia, Japan in China, Italy in Ethiopia, and others, let the whole entity down. There should be hefty fines for non-compliance. All statements like ‘creating a no fly-zone’ should be qualified so that everybody understands it actually means ‘bombing the shit out of them’ and they should say that instead of using euphemisms which have no meaning in fact. But there does need to be a restructuring of the Security Council. The US and UK are as one, and should only have one vote. Australasia should be represented at top level, as should the Middle East and Africa. This will not cure the world’s problems but it would be fairer. The Russian Federation has been quite right to vote against NATO intervention in Syria because of the Libyan example, and to explain why. The pity is this was not done before NATO’s attempts top get its hands on Libyan oil at whatever cost to human suffering and infrastructures. Good post Craig.
What common sense both the Russians and Craig Murray speak in these matters of Syria and Libya.
The US and NATO have only ever had two prime motivations in their recent policies in the Middle East in respect of countries like Libya, Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, Palestine, Yemen, Pakistan, Bahrain. The first is control of oil with unimpeded availability and at an acceptable price desirable to Western economies. The second is enabling Israel’s ambitions to extend its borders, and to disrupt neighbouring states in order to minimise the prospect of co-ordinated opposition. The rest of the rhetoric from the US and NATO is largely irrelevant, except in defining the means to these two ends.
If a country’s population wishes to embark on regime change internally or to seek to remove invader-occupiers, then such is the stuff of history and politics. For sure Russia will have a point of view in such matters, as will other big players like China and India, but as a mature nation Russia is right to stop the UN from being used by the US and NATO as an authority simply to rubber-stamp their own military actions for their own politically motivated strategic ambitions.
Just because we write large cheques to buy a country’s oil does not entitle us to meddle in their internal affairs.
What annoys me about this debate, and particularly those who oppose the intervention in Libya, and who agree with the Russian statement is the complete lack of expressed concern for the people of Syria. You can decry the UN but it is the only representative body of the whole planet. Whether we like it or not, we are all one.
Western democracies historically, particularly since the Vietnam war have on many occasions been guilty of massive crimes against civilians, particularly in that war and in Central America and in Iraq.
But what attitude do you propose that we adopt to the people of Syria, or those of Libya had there been no intervention?
Should we just forget about them like we did about people from Darfur and Burundi?
Susan Rice supports demonstrations in Syria while her government arrests 700 peaceful demonstraters in New York. Funny that?
Tony From Uxbridge: “Just because we write large cheques to buy a country’s oil does not entitle us to meddle in their internal affairs.”
Isn’t that the reason for the meddling – the large cheques? Regime change is not the real purpose of NATO’s actions – it’s to get cheaper oil – or even free oil. NATO is the villain in all this, it is the godfather of world villainy. What it wants it takes with arms. Armed robbery, like the Great Train Robbery, is peanuts to the attempted robberies of NATO. Every day they fill me with disgust.
Conjunction. I understand your concerns for Syria and the Syrian people. But the devastation, killing, maiming and bombardment by NATO has set brother against brother, torn families apart, left families grieving. I will re-post this short video which Mary first posted. Is this what you want for the Syrian people?
.
http://12160.info/video/terrifying-nato-cluster-bomb-in-libya-raw-footage?xg_source=activity
The Guardian seems to be unable to hire even basically competent hacks to write its propaganda. The article cited by Mary above claims that Russia and China voted for UNSCR1973.
If their quotation from Amnesty International is correct, it’s a pity. If AI are so in favour of the defeated resolution they ought to be criticising NATO for perverting UNSCR1973 and thus forcing the veto of its Syrian twin.
Thank you for clarifications Mr Murray. It is clearer to me now what you meant.
.
Although, I think that it was obvious for both China and Russia that NATO will never limit their military action by airstrikes to enforce no-fly zone and protect civilians. I think it was clear to both China and Russia that regime change in Libya was pretty much what NATO wanted (particularly taking into consideration relationship between ‘Mad Dog’ and various US presidents). Both China and Russia did not veto UN resolution on Libya and my reading of the situation is that ‘something’ was promised to them. It is believed that US rarely make any concessions either diplomatic or in business BUT this time I strongly believe that ‘something’ was promised to these two.
.
This ‘something’ was not enough this time as both China and Russia vetoed UN resolution on Syria. It is pretty much this simple in current world order. Hidden agendas and backroom deals are real instruments of policy making on global scale. And Russia is now trying to explain their veto as USSR did many times before in the UN history. This will work for some, particularly for those Russians who still believe that Russia is great power and those who believe that Russian mission is counter balance whatever West comes up with.
Alancampbell,
I have no time at all for Assad or his crimes. Syrian politics are extremely complex, but I have basic sympathy for the protestors, yes. I do favour sanctions against Syria. But we are not going to get them because of our blatant abuse of UNSCR 1973. The UN will be wary of resolutions criticising anyone in any way in case they are used as excuses for attack.
I still believe that UN consists of bunch of pencil pushers and NOTHING else. In my memory this club of useLESS pencil pushers DID NOT come up with anything that saved lives. In Africa and in Asia millions have been slathered while these bunch of pencil pushers attended meetings wearing black/dark blue suits and set up useLESS agendas and adopt something on the paper which extremely rarely works out to be useful.
.
Someone mentioned here that UN represents whole world. Whilst it looks like this, in reality UN serves only to its 5 masters who can overturn any decision and push forward their own agenda. UN needs reformation and this will not come easy. My believe is that UN security council should be abolished and all 5 members should be stripped off their permanent membership privilege. Every decision should be made based on simple quantitative majority. If every state represented in the UN is equally sovereign (which at least on the paper seems to be true) then every state’s opinion on each matter should be counted. Saying this it will complicate situation because more states in the world today and most certainly most of the people in the world are stripped off their right to participate in decision making of their own governments as their states are run by various dictatorships that DO NOT require mandate to govern. Hence, before UN can represent every nation in the world, every nation in the world HAS to be represented by their people and not just by bunch of corrupt and quite often bloody thugs. Otherwise, I DO NOT see any use of the opinion stating that UN represents whole world as at present it is not true.
.
The other problem that comes up forward is the problem of International law that arises from above mentioned problem of UN and its functions. It is true today that millions of people are allowed to live under oppressive governments just because International law calls for UNCONDITIONAL respect of sovereignty. So putting it in other words is bunch of thugs (Karimov or Assad alike) have managed to kill all opponents and eradicate any oppositional thoughts WITHIN their country then they are ALLOWED to continue to govern, kill, rob, rape, enrich themselves JUST BECAUSE of principle of UNCONDITIONAL respect of sovereignty. This is the world we are living in. Is this GOOD? Who cares?
Uzbek. Unconditional love means: I do whatever I like and you have to follow the rules. Unconditional respect for sovereignty is simkilarly one-sided. We intervene for oil. You have to remove your hijab in our public buildings. The concept of unconditionality is directly opposite to the religious concept of conditionality of good behaviour leading to the reward of heaven.
That’s why the World Ziorder of Masonic satanists, i.e. UN and NATO don’t like Islam.
The Russians or the Chinese would be insane to support any resolution ever again that could possibly give Nato and the US a pretext, excuse, or UN ‘cover’ to launch an attack another country.
One can imagine a situation where Iran, Pakistan, Sudan, or Venezuela might find themselves in line for pro-western regime change, or even China itself at some future date, perhaps in relation to Tibet or Taiwan.
One thing’s perfectly clear, neither China or Russia trust the Americans and are extremely wary of them.
Anno,
.
By UNCONDITIONAL sovereignty I mean that sovereignty of the state is put before well being of citizens of the state and that this sovereignty CANNOT be breached even if people are being slathered within the borders of this state. That is what International Law prescribes to all humans in the world. So basically if you were born in lets say UK you are lucky one and if you were born in Uzbekistan/Syria/Zimbabwe you are UNlucky one because International Law will protect BUT not you but sovereignty of the state where you live. And this is Unconditionally to whether you are well within the borders of that state or NOT.
.
As for religion. I might be wrong but was not religion the main reason of wars in the few thousand years? Yes, 2 World Wars were nothing to do with religion and particularly with Islam but stating that being Good Muslim guarantees one a place in Heaven this is a bit of naive. I have nothing against people who believe in this, but I myself believe in Freedom and this contradicts every religious books and dogmas.
‘“India shares borders with Burma, and S.A. with Zimbabwe. Obviously they need to be cautious about their relationships with their neighbours…”
Oh, of course. Silly me. That makes supporting dictators alright then.’
India & South Africa have no interest in antagonising the dictators on their borders, and brown nose them occasionally as a consequence.
The US in contrast brown noses dictators on the other side of the world, like Karimov & the House of Saud. Is that preferable ?
Evan Davis with Rosemary Hollis and Tzipi Livni (referred to earlier) on Radio 4 Today.
1hr 33mins in on http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/b006qj9z/console
.
I can’t find it now but Davis introduced an item on Afghanistan by saying ‘Guess how long we have been in Afghanistan?’ as if it is some sort of social affair or tea party. Some of these BBC types are shallow and lacking in both humanity and soul. 2,000 jobs to go. Bet it won’t be any of the Radio 4 Today team of presenters.
Another illustration of the BBC mindset on our wars. No mention of those we have killed and maimed, in thousands I should think.
.
5 October 2011 UK military deaths in AfghanistanIn pictures
How they died
Full list
The UK’s military role in Afghanistan since 2001 has not been without its human toll. Members of the Army, RAF, Royal Marines and special forces have lost their lives in the fight against the Taliban. Here, the BBC News website offers a look at who they were and how they died.
.
Click on the photographs below to find out more information on each casualty.
.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10634173
Conjunction
.
The whole point is concern for the people of Syria, that their country should not be turned into Iraq mkIII.
.
Did you not see the reports that Russia proposed a text which called for restraint on all sides in Syria, and specifically said that foreign military intervention was not appropriate. Why wouldn’t Barry and Nick and Dave agree to that?