I did not believe the official story of Hasna Ait Buolacehn the moment I saw it. The official line was that she was a suicide bomber who blew herself up when the police stormed the apartment in St Denis where the alleged terrorist ringleader was hiding out. But that story seemed to me completely incompatible with the recordings on which she could plainly be heard screaming “He is not my boyfriend! He is not my boyfriend” immediately before the explosion. She sounded like a terrified woman trying to disassociate herself from the alleged terrorist. It was a strange battle cry for someone who believed themselves on the verge of paradise.
Then yesterday the truth emerged from forensics that she was indeed not a suicide bomber. None of the mainstream media appeared to find this in any way troubling. And just in case anybody did, the BBC (and I assume all the French and major international media) then immediately did an interview with an anonymous member of the French Police attacking squad, who stated that Hasna was:
“trying to say she was not linked to the terrorists, that she had nothing to do with them and wanted to surrender”.
But he said that due to prior intelligence, “we knew that she was trying to manipulate us”.
Unfortunately this would have been a very great deal more convincing had it been stated 48 hours earlier, rather than only after the original reports that she was a suicide bomber had been corrected on forensic examination. As it is, it looks very much like a post facto justification, a new story to cover the new facts.
Besides, it is very difficult indeed to see what prior intelligence could explain if someone was genuinely trying to surrender or not. There appears to be no information available to the public that gives the slightest indication that Hasna was an extreme Islamist; what public information there is paints the opposite picture. The best the media have been able to dredge up are quotes from friends saying “if she was, then she must have been drugged or brainwashed”. Google it yourself.
But even were she an extreme Islamist, that does not mean she was not attempting to surrender. All of which is a bit nugatory if she were then killed by an explosion triggered by the terrorists themselves. But the changing story about Hasna makes me less than confident that is what actually happened.
I have no difficulty with the principle that the police should shoot people who are shooting at them. I outraged many friends on the left for example by not joining in the criticism of the police for killing Mr Duggan. People who choose to carry guns in my view run a legitimate risk of being shot by the police, it is as simple as that. Jean Charles De Menezes was a totally different case and his murder by police completely unjustifiable. In Paris it appears plain that the police were in a situation of confrontation with armed suspects.
There are severe intelligence disadvantages to killing people with profound knowledge of terrorist organisations. It also cheats the justice system. Nevertheless I can conceive of situations where simply taking out by an explosion a terrorist cell might be justified. But only if you are quite certain of the situation. The case of Hasna is to me troublingly reminiscent of the case of Jean Charles De Menezes, in that it became obvious in the days after his death that everything the police and establishment had leaked to the media about him (leaping over barriers, running through the tunnels, heavy jacket, wires protruding) was a complete, utter and quite deliberate lie.
The media could help if they were in any way rational and dispassionate, or ever questioned an official narrative. It is an urgent and irrepressible question as to why the BBC journalist did not ask the French policeman “and why did you not say this 48 hours ago when you were content to allow the story to run that she was a suicide bomber?”
Similar media manipulation is at use here by the Guardian in telling us the police stormed a “terrorist apartment”. What is a “terrorist apartment”? Are the walls made of semtex? The intent of course is to assure us everybody inside was a terrorist. It is not just the Guardian. The phrase is all over the media. Again, google it.
I am worried in case Hollande’s Rambo impersonation is steamrollering justice. It may well be that Hasna was a dreadful and bloodthirsty terrorist. I do not know. It may well be she was killed by the terrorists not the police. All we know at the moment is she was in an apartment with people who allegedly were terrorists, and died in the “battle”. But I do not trust the changing stories of the authorities.
The Global Terrorism Index 2015 Report is out and it does not look pretty.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/global-terrorism-index-2015-2015-11?r=US&IR=T
http://www.tv360nigeria.com/report-nigeria-third-most-terrorized-country-in-the-world/
“I’m not really sure why this question of ‘shoot to kill’ has arisen. I think what some people mean when they talk about ‘shoot to kill’ is ‘pre-emptive assassination domestically’ which obviously is unacceptable. But I don;t think anyone is suggsting that it ought to happen. So it’s really pretty much a red herring.”
It certainly is what people are proposing to license. They are talking about assassinating “suspects”. A suspect is someone who has not yet done anything and who is in the eyes of the law innocent until proven guilty. Ask the family of Jean Charles de Menezes what happens when this precious protection is removed.
Node
Shout as much as you want – I’ll answer your questions once you have answered all mine (especially given I have shown infinite patience in the past in dealing with your interrogative style), including do you regret your support for Saddam/Ghadaffi/Assad/Hamas/Hezbollah/Putin given their myriad abuses of human rights? What actions do you think the international community should take against tyrants who abuse the human rights of their citizens? Why do you never want to support those of a progressive liberal stance in all those countries ruled by the tyrants named above?
In addition to the party girl suicide bomber, we now have a bar owner suicide bomber as well.
It seems like some Islamic terrorist just go a little bit wild and crazy before checking out to go meet Allah in person. Note the unislamic habits of the 9/11 bad boy of bad boy terrorist Mohammed Atta. He liked to eat pork chops, drink alcohol, snort cocaine and was quite the all round party animal as per his lingerie model/stripper girlfriend, Amanda Keller.
NB Full title of Hopsicer’s book is Welcome to Terrorland: Mohamed Atta & the 9/11 Cover-up in Florida
“The Syrian Government, the Syrian President, the SAA and other forces, assisted by additional air power from Russia are doing an excellent job is curtailing ISIS.”
Events in Paris and the blowing up of the Metrojet plane suggest otherwise.
Clearly you believe in Russian bombs good, Nato bombs bad, but thanks for the confirmation. Did you support Assad’s bombing of the Palestinians in Syrian refugee camps? I suspect the Russian had no problem with that given the nearness of their vase to the Latakia camp – and they probably supplied the ordinance.
Sorry I supplied the wrong link for the info on Mohammed Atta above. The material I quoted came from a post at Democratic Underground. Here is the correct link.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104×1433886
@Tony M – they want us to believe they were unable to spot the 5km long lines of ISIS crude oil trucks for a whole year, whilst they are able to routinely target the individual mud huts of the wives of Taliban fighters. Satan is definately in charge of the media with the aaronowitches and hellen boadens doing their bit to leave savile and janner buggering away undisturbed.
Alcyone 6.22pm .
Re your post on your Curry eating :
Are you sure it was an Indian Curry and not a Greek one cooked up by your late father Aeolus who specialised in the creation of the finer aspects of wind making than in the unpleasant results of your curry consumption ? Many of your posts seeming to leave the fouler smelling aftereffects of your dear father’s more innocent creations .
@Monteverdi – gently, godbole will admit he has had occasion to use the Indian railway line for more than just travel. Following in the unkempt dhoti of his hero the cultist krishnamurky !
Here, someone has helpfully compiled a bunch of them in a handy list for you. This is a list of planned and/or actual false flags going back to the 1930s which were confirmed, usually years later, by government or military sources or politicians.
42 ADMITTED False Flag Attacks
Posted on February 9, 2015 by WashingtonsBlog
Governments from Around the World Admit They Do It
There are many documented false flag attacks, where a government carries out a terror attack … and then falsely blames its enemy for political purposes.
In the following 42 instances, officials in the government which carried out the attack (or seriously proposed an attack) admits to it, either orally or in writing:
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/02/41-admitted-false-flag-attacks.html
Barrel bombs are improvised explosive devices used by the Syrian Army which, for the past five years has been increasingly starved of arms and munitions. Unlike its opponents-mercenaries employed by NATO allies-who are armed to the teeth, gratis, by Syria’s enemies, including the UK and France, Syria’s forces have been subject to arms boycotts and sanctions, in much the same way that the Spanish republic was prevented from arming itself while Hitler and Mussolini fought alongside and supplied its fascist enemies.
Barrel bombs are used, for the most part, as anti-personnel weapons dropped onto positions held by the forces invading Syria. Whether these people, most of whom are actually foreigners, can be called “Assad’s own people” is a matter for philosophers and theologians to discuss; in ordinary terms they are not.
Assad may justly be called a ‘murderer’ if, by this, is meant that the government over which he presides kills people, particularly armed people who attack the government and its agents. It seems unlikely to me that Assad is even in the same league of murderers as Cameron, Obama, Hollande and others responsible for wars throughout the middle east and northern Africa. As to Netanyahu and his ilk, they are really murderers and have, like their predecessor Sharon, made long careers out of the killings that they have personally carried out.
The truth, so unpalatable to Obama et al, is that Assad appears to have massive and deeply felt support from “his own people.” Without such support his government would, long since, have gone the way of Ghadaffi’s.
The Syrian Arab army is fighting bravely against better armed opponents who have been able to rely on the resources of major powers including their vast propaganda engines as they set out to overthrow Syria’s government. Now that the Russians have responded to Assad’s pleas for assistance nothing short of open attacks on Syria by the UK and its partners in crime is likely to prevent the defeat of Al Nusra, ISIS and other fronts and scatter its soldiers to the four winds.
If Syria’s government prevails the consequences both for NATO and Israel will be serious-Hezbollah has already established that, despite its enormous financial and materiel advantages, the IDF is as weak as fascist armies always turn out to be when the realisation of the idiocy of racist ideas of superiority- which happens when victims organise and fight back- meets with a demoralising sense of guilt as past crimes are recollected.
As to NATO, its populations are already alive to the disgrace of being governed by genocidal liars. As those rulers enforce deeper and deeper impoverishment, injustice and inequality of opportunity on “their own people” their hold on power begins to slip.
It used to be, talking of Owen Jones, that socialists had to spend a few years on the left before selling out. Christopher Hitchens, Aaronovitch, Cohn and the rest of them gained credibility by understanding a little of what they came to betray. Nowadays, as Jones shows, a momentary genuflection towards the left is all that is needed before enrolling in the choir which is paid to sing that their former God has failed, while sneering at those who persist in serving the people.
Could George Osborne’s unnaturally pale complexion be down to his having seen the likely bill for our share of the reparations to Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Libya etc., for the ruination we have wrought upon their homes and towns, to their countries infrastructure and heritage, for the dead and damaged and deformed. You’ll all be paying – and your children – until the grave for Blair and Cameron’s criminal follies.
Pariah nation, Little Satan, despised the world over, that’s Britain.
Whoa there, David Cameron! Haste and rhetoric is no recipe for peace
Reactions to Paris and Mali have been militaristic rhetoric brought about by ignorance and refusal to understand the injustices of the Middle East
Each morning, I awake to find another Hollywood horror being concocted by our secret policemen or our public relations-inspired leaders. Germany’s top spy warns us of a “Terrorist World War” – I accept his expertise, of course, because Germany has itself proved rather efficient at starting world wars – while a perfectly sane and otherwise brilliant historian compares Europe’s agony to the fall of the Roman Empire. The Paris killings are now supposed to have “changed Paris for ever” or “changed France for ever”. I would accept that the collaboration of General Pétain with Nazi Germany changed France for ever – but the atrocities in Paris this month simply cannot be compared with the German occupation of 1940. That most tiresome of French philosophers, Bernard-Henri Lévy, tells us that Isis are “Fascislamists”.
Read more
Isis was quick to understand a truth the West must now confront
Oddly, I don’t remember the same Mr Lévy telling us that the avowedly Christian Lebanese killers of up to 1,700 Palestinian civilians in the Beirut Sabra-Shatila refugee camps of 1982 – Israel’s vicious Lebanese militia allies – were “Fascichristians”. This was a “terrorist” act with which I was all too familiar. With two journalist colleagues, I walked among the butchered and raped corpses of the dead. The American-armed and funded Israeli army watched the slaughter – and did nothing. Yet not a single Western politicians announced that this had “changed the Middle East for ever”. And if 1,700 innocents can be murdered in Beirut in 1982 without “world war” being declared, how can President François Hollande announce that France is “at war” after 130 innocents were massacred?
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/whoa-there-david-cameron-haste-and-rhetoric-is-no-recipe-for-peace-a6744271.html
Bevin
Thanks for that piece of comedy – if you think Assad and his backer Putin are true socialists standing up to the fascists you really have lost any grasp on reality. Might I suggest that you step out of your binary world and start to realise that there are more than two possibilities when it comes to politics and world views. It is almost as though 1989 never happened.
Great post above by Bevin (7:28pm), love it, nailed them.
“Pariah nation, Little Satan, despised the world over, that’s Britain.”
Listen closely for the message
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfWlot6h_JM
MythBusters! Disproving Trump, Jeb! and Others!
On this special episode, Ron Paul takes his Jedi Sword to slice and dice today’s most popular myths.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJlJspIf5RM
“Great post above by Bevin (7:28pm), love it, nailed them.”
The comrades like a bit of whitewash – come friendly barrel bombs and fall on Homs
I heard an old saying in India; ‘How can a Monkey know the Taste of Ginger?”
Ah for the lure of the spices of India!
And then there is the grand Tandoori Chicken, reputedly the National Bird of the Punjab. 😉
The Hobbits on here can have the leftover bones…
LOL
” Listen closely for the message. ”
Nice one there RD — good imagination!
http://uk.businessinsider.com/jeremy-corbyn-poll-numbers-v-ed-miliband-2015-11
Well it seems outside the hostile ‘ Westminster and Media bubble ‘ Jeremy Corbyn is doing rather well . Not that you’d know if you took at face value the relentless media campaign being orchestrated against him .
Resident Dissident : do you regret your support for Saddam/Ghadaffi/Assad/Hamas/Hezbollah/Putin given their myriad abuses of human rights? What actions do you think the international community should take against tyrants who abuse the human rights of their citizens? Why do you never want to support those of a progressive liberal stance in all those countries ruled by the tyrants named above?
Most of these I have never taken a position on (in this blog) but I’m quite willing to. I find your list of MSM bêtes noire revealing. Nevertheless, with the proviso that my support doesn’t mean I think they are totally blameless/innocent/flawless …..
do you regret your support for Saddam?
No. He was certainly a more honourable man than Tony Blair or David Cameron. He was demonised by our MSM.
do you regret your support for Ghadaffi?
No, absolutely not. Gadaffi was a great man. He was demonised by our MSM.
do you regret your support for Assad?
No. I support his right to defend himself and his country from attack by the West. He is being demonised by our MSM.
do you regret your support for Hamas
No, they have a democratic right to defend Palestine. They are being demonised by our MSM
do you regret your support for Hezbollah.
No. They are fighting to protect their country. They are being demonised by our MSM
do you regret your support for Putin.
No. In his recent clashes with the West, I think he has been in the right. He is being demonised by our MSM.
Why do you never want to support those of a progressive liberal stance in all those countries ruled by the tyrants named above?
I don’t think we have the right to interfere in any of those countries. “Tyrants” is a term used by the MSM to demonise political leaders who oppose the West.
So …..
Do you now regret arguing for UK military intervention in Libya?
Or do you think it was a price worth paying?
^ Ooops mention the Hobbit and it appears as a hungry troll^
There was a half decent Scottish band playing in our pub this afternoon..I told them to get a gig in August (its a Festival thing) – nah you guys will go down great = don’t worry about it.
There was an old English Man looking at The TV in our pub this afternoon..so coas all this Scottish band could do was play English and American songs..I did ask if they could do a bit of Scottish – Maybe Irish..maybe Celtic…
And they Did All Right Now…
So I talked to The Old English Gentleman – very conservative – and immaculately dressed suit and tie the works..
I just knew he was a Professor…
I introduced myself – I said you look like a Noam Chomsky (slightly younger version)
It was just so nice to talk to him
He was watching The TV News about The Terrorist Attacks in Paris…
And I knew what he was thinking…No we can’t do that.
The Americans are Now Attacking Europe.
How Do We defend Ourselves From That?
His Name is Barry and He is 87 Years Old.
Sharp Dressed Man
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wRHBLwpASw
(I said we can’t Nuke Washington)
Tony
Node beat me to it by a nanosecond, but no need to split hairs.
RD, Sorry, I missed one of your questions What actions do you think the international community should take against tyrants who abuse the human rights of their citizens?
None.
Syrian Army. In the interest of plain ol’ curiosity I wonder if any (Bevin or ?) have insight into the psychology of the Syrian Army? Particularly the loyalty. I say loyalty because one can assume based upon the odds they face and return with what seems a resourceful and gritty military leadership.
So unreconstructed trot Bevin reckons the barrel bombs are the desperate last resort of an impoverished regime standing up against evil! You couldn’t make this shit up.
They are packed with as many sharp objects as can be crammed in to them and dropped completely indiscriminately out of the back of helicopters on neighbourhoods that do not support the Assad & Son Family Butchers firm, in order to punish the inhabitants en masse. How Bevin can balance this with his leftist credentials is anyone’s guess.
It is astonishing that there are people out there who believe the Assad dictatorship is some sort of benevolent, ‘nice’ dictatorship. The rape, torture and executions of those who stand up to the brutality of the regime ought to be a lesson to Bevin, but I doubt he’s bothered by any of that as long as his little pet dictatorship is opposed by the West.
http://www.gutsandgore.co.uk/notorious-prisons/tadmor-prison/
Gaddafi was a great man? Snark?
With the Russian intervention in Syria proving to be a game changer, its worthwhile to revisit Putins UN Speech, translated by the Washington Post.
This “Those who have caused the situation, do you realize now what you’ve done?” hard to find English translation speech is in the WashPo
PUTIN (THROUGH INTERPRETER):
Your excellency Mr. President, your excellency Mr. Secretary General, distinguished heads of state and government, ladies and gentlemen, the 70th anniversary of the United Nations is a good occasion to both take stock of history and talk about our common future.
In 1945, the countries that defeated Nazism joined their efforts to lay solid foundations for the postwar world order.
But I remind you that the key decisions on the principles guiding the cooperation among states, as well as on the establishment of the United Nations, were made in our country, in Yalta, at the meeting of the anti-Hitler coalition leaders.
The Yalta system was actually born in travail. It was won at the cost of tens of millions of lives and two world wars.This swept through the planet in the 20th century.Let us be fair. It helped humanity through turbulent, at times dramatic, events of the last seven decades. It saved the world from large-scale upheavals.
The United Nations is unique in its legitimacy, representation and universality. It is true that lately the U.N. has been widely criticized for supposedly not being efficient enough, and for the fact that the decision-making on fundamental issues stalls due to insurmountable differences, first of all, among the members of the Security Council.
However, I’d like to point out there have always been differences in the U.N. throughout all these 70 years of existence. The veto right has always been exercised by the United States, the United Kingdom, France, China, the Soviet Union and Russia later, alike. It is absolutely natural for so diverse and representative an organization.
When the U.N. was established, its founders did not in the least think that there would always be unanimity. The mission of the organization is to seek and reach compromises, and its strength comes from taking different views and opinions into consideration. Decisions debated within the U.N. are either taken as resolutions or not. As diplomats say, they either pass or do not pass.
Whatever actions any state might take bypassing this procedure are illegitimate. They run counter to the charter and defy international law. We all know that after the end of the Cold War — everyone is aware of that — a single center of domination emerged in the world, and then those who found themselves at the top of the pyramid were tempted to think that if they were strong and exceptional, they knew better and they did not have to reckon with the U.N., which, instead of [acting to] automatically authorize and legitimize the necessary decisions, often creates obstacles or, in other words, stands in the way.
It has now become commonplace to see that in its original form, it has become obsolete and completed its historical mission. Of course, the world is changing and the U.N. must be consistent with this natural transformation. Russia stands ready to work together with its partners on the basis of full consensus, but we consider the attempts to undermine the legitimacy of the United Nations as extremely dangerous. They could lead to a collapse of the entire architecture of international organizations, and then indeed there would be no other rules left but the rule of force.
We would get a world dominated by selfishness rather than collective work, a world increasingly characterized by dictate rather than equality. There would be less of a chain of democracy and freedom, and that would be a world where true independent states would be replaced by an ever-growing number of de facto protectorates and externally controlled territories.
What is the state sovereignty, after all, that has been mentioned by our colleagues here? It is basically about freedom and the right to choose freely one’s own future for every person, nation and state. By the way, dear colleagues, the same holds true of the question of the so-called legitimacy of state authority. One should not play with or manipulate words.
Every term in international law and international affairs should be clear, transparent and have uniformly understood criteria. We are all different, and we should respect that. No one has to conform to a single development model that someone has once and for all recognized as the only right one. We should all remember what our past has taught us.
We also remember certain episodes from the history of the Soviet Union. Social experiments for export, attempts to push for changes within other countries based on ideological preferences, often led to tragic consequences and to degradation rather than progress.
It seemed, however, that far from learning from others’ mistakes, everyone just keeps repeating them, and so the export of revolutions, this time of so-called democratic ones, continues. It would suffice to look at the situation in the Middle East and North Africa, as has been mentioned by previous speakers. Certainly political and social problems in this region have been piling up for a long time, and people there wish for changes naturally.
But how did it actually turn out? Rather than bringing about reforms, an aggressive foreign interference has resulted in a brazen destruction of national institutions and the lifestyle itself. Instead of the triumph of democracy and progress, we got violence, poverty and social disaster. Nobody cares a bit about human rights, including the right to life.
I cannot help asking those who have caused the situation, do you realize now what you’ve done? But I am afraid no one is going to answer that. Indeed, policies based on self-conceit and belief in one’s exceptionality and impunity have never been abandoned.
It is now obvious that the power vacuum created in some countries of the Middle East and North Africa through the emergence of anarchy areas, which immediately started to be filled with extremists and terrorists.
Tens of thousands of militants are fighting under the banners of the so-called Islamic State. Its ranks include former Iraqi servicemen who were thrown out into the street after the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Many recruits also come from Libya, a country whose statehood was destroyed as a result of a gross violation of the U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973. And now, the ranks of radicals are being joined by the members of the so-called moderate Syrian opposition supported by the Western countries.
First, they are armed and trained and then they defect to the so-called Islamic State. Besides, the Islamic State itself did not just come from nowhere. It was also initially forged as a tool against undesirable secular regimes.
Having established a foothold in Iraq and Syria, the Islamic State has begun actively expanding to other regions. It is seeking dominance in the Islamic world. And not only there, and its plans go further than that. The situation is more than dangerous.
In these circumstances, it is hypocritical and irresponsible to make loud declarations about the threat of international terrorism while turning a blind eye to the channels of financing and supporting terrorists, including the process of trafficking and illicit trade in oil and arms. It would be equally irresponsible to try to manipulate extremist groups and place them at one’s service in order to achieve one’s own political goals in the hope of later dealing with them or, in other words, liquidating them.
To those who do so, I would like to say — dear sirs, no doubt you are dealing with rough and cruel people, but they’re in no way primitive or silly. They are just as clever as you are, and you never know who is manipulating whom. And the recent data on arms transferred to this most moderate opposition is the best proof of it.
We believe that any attempts to play games with terrorists, let alone to arm them, are not just short-sighted, but fire hazardous (ph). This may result in the global terrorist threat increasing dramatically and engulfing new regions, especially given that Islamic State camps train militants from many countries, including the European countries.
Unfortunately, dear colleagues, I have to put it frankly: Russia is not an exception. We cannot allow these criminals who already tasted blood to return back home and continue their evil doings. No one wants this to happen, does he?
Russia has always been consistently fighting against terrorism in all its forms. Today, we provide military and technical assistance both to Iraq and Syria and many other countries of the region who are fighting terrorist groups.
We think it is an enormous mistake to refuse to cooperate with the Syrian government and its armed forces, who are valiantly fighting terrorism face to face. We should finally acknowledge that no one but President Assad’s armed forces and Kurds (ph) militias are truly fighting the Islamic State and other terrorist organizations in Syria.
We know about all the problems and contradictions in the region, but which were based on the reality.
Dear colleagues, I must note that such an honest and frank approach of Russia has been recently used as a pretext to accuse it of its growing ambitions, as if those who say it have no ambitions at all.
However, it’s not about Russia’s ambitions, dear colleagues, but about the recognition of the fact that we can no longer tolerate the current state of affairs in the world. What we actually propose is to be guided by common values and common interests, rather than ambitions.
On the basis of international law, we must join efforts to address the problems that all of us are facing and create a genuinely broad international coalition against terrorism.
Similar to the anti-Hitler coalition, it could unite a broad range of forces that are resolutely resisting those who, just like the Nazis, sow evil and hatred of humankind. And, naturally, the Muslim countries are to play a key role in the coalition, even more so because the Islamic State does not only pose a direct threat to them, but also desecrates one of the greatest world religions by its bloody crimes.
The ideologists (ph) of militants make a mockery of Islam and pervert its true humanistic (ph) values. I would like to address Muslim spiritual leaders, as well. Your authority and your guidance are of great importance right now.
It is essential to prevent people recruited by militants from making hasty decisions and those who have already been deceived, and who, due to various circumstances found themselves among terrorists, need help in finding a way back to normal life, laying down arms, and putting an end to fratricide.
Russia will shortly convene, as the (ph) current president of the Security Council, a ministerial meeting to carry out a comprehensive analysis of threats in the Middle East.
First of all, we propose discussing whether it is possible to agree on a resolution aimed at coordinating the actions of all the forces that confront the Islamic State and other terrorist organizations. Once again, this coordination should be based on the principles of the U.N. Charter.
We hope that the international community will be able to develop a comprehensive strategy of political stabilization, as well as social and economic recovery, of the Middle East.
Then, dear friends, there would be no need for new refugee camps. Today, the flow of people who were forced to leave their homeland has literally engulfed first neighboring countries and then Europe itself. There were hundreds of thousands of them now, and there might be millions before long. In fact, it is a new great and tragic migration of peoples, and it is a harsh lesson for all of us, including Europe.
I would like to stress refugees undoubtedly need our compassion and support. However, the — on the way to solve this problem at a fundamental level is to restore their statehood where it has been destroyed, to strengthen the government institutions where they still exist or are being reestablished, to provide comprehensive assistance of military, economic and material nature to countries in a difficult situation. And certainly, to those people who, despite all the ordeals, will not abandon their homes. Literally, any assistance to sovereign states can and must be offered rather than imposed exclusively and solely in accordance with the U.N. Charter.
In other words, everything in this field that has been done or will be done pursuant to the norms of international law must be supported by our organization. Everything that contravenes the U.N. Charter must be rejected. Above all, I believe it is of the utmost importance to help restore government’s institutions in Libya, support the new government of Iraq and provide comprehensive assistance to the legitimate government of Syria.
Dear colleagues, ensuring peace and regional and global stability remains the key objective of the international community with the U.N. at its helm. We believe this means creating a space of equal and indivisible security, which is not for the select few but for everyone. Yet, it is a challenge and complicated and time-consuming task, but there is simply no other alternative. However, the bloc thinking of the times of the Cold War and the desire to explore new geopolitical areas is still present among some of our colleagues.
First, they continue their policy of expanding NATO. What for? If the Warsaw Bloc stopped its existence, the Soviet Union have collapsed (ph) and, nevertheless, the NATO continues expanding as well as its military infrastructure. Then they offered the poor Soviet countries a false choice: either to be with the West or with the East. Sooner or later, this logic of confrontation was bound to spark off a grave geopolitical crisis. This is exactly what happened in Ukraine, where the discontent of population with the current authorities was used and the military coup was orchestrated from outside — that triggered a civil war as a result.
We’re confident that only through full and faithful implementation of the Minsk agreements of February 12th, 2015, can we put an end to the bloodshed and find a way out of the deadlock. Ukraine’s territorial integrity cannot be ensured by threat of force and force of arms. What is needed is a genuine consideration for the interests and rights of the people in the Donbas region and respect for their choice. There is a need to coordinate with them as provided for by the Minsk agreements, the key elements of the country’s political structure. These steps will guarantee that Ukraine will develop as a civilized society, as an essential link and building a common space of security and economic cooperation, both in Europe and in Eurasia.
Ladies and gentlemen, I have mentioned these common space of economic cooperation on purpose. Not long ago, it seemed that in the economic sphere, with its objective market loss, we would launch a leaf (ph) without dividing lines. We would build on transparent and jointly formulated rules, including the WTO principles, stipulating the freedom of trade, and investment and open competition.
Nevertheless, today, unilateral sanctions circumventing the U.N. Charter have become commonplace, in addition to pursuing political objectives. The sanctions serve as a means of eliminating competitors.
I would like to point out another sign of a growing economic selfishness. Some countries [have] chosen to create closed economic associations, with the establishment being negotiated behind the scenes, in secret from those countries’ own citizens, the general public, business community and from other countries.
Other states whose interests may be affected are not informed of anything, either. It seems that we are about to be faced with an accomplished fact that the rules of the game have been changed in favor of a narrow group of the privileged, with the WTO having no say. This could unbalance the trade system completely and disintegrate the global economic space.
These issues affect the interest of all states and influence the future of the world economy as a whole. That is why we propose discussing them within the U.N. WTO NGO (ph) ’20.
Contrary to the policy of exclusiveness, Russia proposes harmonizing original economic projects. I refer to the so-called integration of integrations based on universal and transparent rules of international trade. As an example, I would like to cite our plans to interconnect the Eurasian economic union, and China’s initiative of the Silk Road economic belt.
We still believe that harmonizing the integration processes within the Eurasian Economic Union and the European Union is highly promising.
Ladies and gentlemen, the issues that affect the future of all people include the challenge of global climate change. It is in our interest to make the U.N. Climate Change Conference to be held in December in Paris a success.As part of our national contribution, we plan to reduce by 2030 the greenhouse emissions to 70, 75 percent of the 1990 level.
I suggest, however, we should take a wider view on this issue. Yes, we might defuse the problem for a while, by setting quotas on harmful emissions or by taking other measures that are nothing but tactical. But we will not solve it that way. We need a completely different approach.
We have to focus on introducing fundamental and new technologies inspired by nature, which would not damage the environment, but would be in harmony with it. Also, that would allow us to restore the balance upset by biosphere and technosphere (ph) upset by human activities.
It is indeed a challenge of planetary scope, but I’m confident that humankind has intellectual potential to address it. We need to join our efforts. I refer, first of all, to the states that have a solid research basis and have made significant advances in fundamental science.
We propose convening a special forum under the U.N. auspices for a comprehensive consideration of the issues related to the depletion of natural resources, destruction of habitat and climate change.
Russia would be ready to co-sponsor such a forum.
Ladies and gentlemen, colleagues, it was on the 10th of January, 1946, in London that the U.N. General Assembly gathered for its first session. Mr. Suleta (inaudible), a Colombian diplomat and the chairman of the Preparatory Commission, opened the session by giving, I believe, a concise definition of the basic principles that the U.N. should follow in its activities, which are free will, defiance of scheming and trickery and spirit of cooperation.
Today, his words sound as a guidance for all of us. Russia believes in the huge potential of the United Nations, which should help us avoid a new global confrontation and engage in strategic cooperation. Together with other countries, we will consistently work towards strengthening the central coordinating role of the U.N. I’m confident that by working together, we will make the world stable and safe, as well as provide conditions for the development of all states and nations.
Thank you.
END