World War and the Russia-China Veto: Towards a Break Point at the UN Security Council?
By Carla Stea
Global Research, February 8, 2012
URL of this article: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=29141
Admonition to the Security Council: “First Do No Harm.” (The Russian Ambassador)“They were careless people – they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness, or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made.” F. Scott Fitzgerald“We came, we saw, he died.” Secretary of State Clinton, on the extrajudicial murder of Omar Khaddafy“What need we fear who knows it when none can call our power to account? Yet who would have thought the old man to have had so much blood in him.” William Shakespeare, Macbeth
It
is troubling, indeed, that although Mrs. Navi Pillay, the United
Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights had never set foot in Syria
during the period about which she professed expertise, she was,
nevertheless invited to address the United Nations Security Council on
December 9, 2011, and much of the Western media quoted her as the authoritative source on human rights abuses by the Syrian government, citing her poorly substantiated remarks on numerous occasions. It
is especially troubling because, at the January 31, 2012 Security
Council meeting on Syria, addressed by Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton, UK Foreign Secretary William Hague, the French Foreign
Minister, the Qatar Prime Minister and other diplomatic luminaries, Mr.
Muhammad Ahmad Mustafa Al-Dabi, the Head of the League of Arab States
Observer Mission to Syria, who had traveled throughout Syria from
December 24, 2011 through January 18, 2012, who had interviewed a broad
spectrum of Syrians, from members of the Syrian opposition, to Syrian
government officials, and Syrian civilians, was not invited to that
meeting to present facts about the reality on the ground in the Syrian Arab Republic. However,
Mr. Al-Dabi’s Report, dated January 27, 2012 presents too many
“inconvenient truths” which undermine and discredit the campaign to
demonize the Syrian government. So transparency and accountability were sacrificed for the sake of propaganda.
For the record, Mr. Al-Dabi’s report states:
26. In Homs and Dera’a the Mission observed armed groups committing acts of violence against Government forces, resulting in death and injury among their ranks. In certain situations, Government forces responded to attacks against their personnel with force. The observers noted that some of the armed groups were using flares and armour-piercing projectiles. In
Homs , Idlib and Hama , the Observer Mission witnessed acts of violence
being committed against Government forces and civilians that resulted
in several deaths and injuries. Examples of those acts
include the bombing of a civilian bus carrying eight persons and
injuring others, including women and children, and the bombing of a
train carrying diesel oil. In another incident in Homs , a police bus was blown up, killing two police officers. A fuel pipeline and some small bridges were also bombed.
44. In
Homs , a French journalist who worked for France 2 channel was killed
and a Belgian journalist injured...It should be noted that Mission
reports from Homs indicate that the French journalist was killed by
opposition mortar shells.
73. The Mission noted that the Government strived to help it succeed in its task and remove any barriers that might stand in its way. No
restrictions were placed on the movement of the Mission and its ability
to interview Syrian citizens, both those who opposed the Government and
those loyal to it.
75. Recently there have been incidents that could widen the gap and increase bitterness between the parties. These incidents can have grave consequences and lead to the loss of life and property. Such
incidents include the bombing of buildings, trains carrying fuel,
vehicles carrying diesel oil and explosions targeting the police,
members of the media and fuel pipelines. Some of those attacks have been carried out by the Free Syrian Army and some by other armed opposition groups.
68. Since it began its work, the Mission has been the target of vicious media campaigns. Some media outlets have published unfounded statements which they attributed to the Head of Mission. They have also grossly exaggerated events, thereby distorting the truth. Such contrived reports have helped to increase tension among the Syrian people and undermined the observers’ work. Some media organizations were exploited in order to defame the mission and its Head and cause the Mission to fail.”
Rarely
mentioned is a report that a Saudi TV station recently broadcast a
Salafist religious leader giving his blessing for spilling the blood of
observers. This was stated by the Russian Ambassador at the Security Council meeting on January 31.
The
Report of the League of Arab States Observer Mission to Syria
discredited the US/NATO effort to justify a Security Council resolution
paving the way for economic sanctions and, ultimately, military invasion
of Syria, using arguments and blueprints almost identical to the ones
used to induce the entire Security Council to support resolution 1973
against the Libyan government. (The prelude to Security Council
resolution 1973 included members of the
Libyan opposition - speaking before the Security Council in violation of
the Security Council Rules of Procedure- lamenting the plight of
peaceful Libyan demonstrators, and pleading for the equivalent of color
revolutions, orange, rose, tulip, velvet, jasmine and other bubble gum
flavored programs engineering the destabilization and collapse of
governments too independent to be tolerated by NATO powers. These
Libyan defectors begged for foreign intervention in Libya , and their
tears were the culmination of opportunism – many of them had earlier
comfortably represented the Gadaffi government.)
Mrs.
Navi Pillay provided the fig leaf required for adoption of a Security
Council resolution against Syria (though she had never entered Syria
throughout the entire period in question), so she was given a red carpet
welcome by the UK , Germany , the US , France , etc. Mr.
Al-Dabi was not part of the orchestra, and did not provide necessary
cover for economic and military aggression against the Syrian
government, so he was effectively excluded from participation in the
Security Council meeting about which he exclusively possessed reliable
direct information from inside Syria .
It
is troubling that, although the Al-Dabi report was readily obtainable
by media outlets, at no point does the New York Times refer to the
Observer Mission Report in its January 28th page 8 article, or in its February 1 page 8 article, or in its February 2nd page 10 article, or in its supercilious editorial on February 2nd, entitled: “It’s time for Russia to stop blocking the United Nations from acting against the Assad regime.” The editorial states: “The
Russians, Chinese and Indians – invoking Libya – insist that they will
not abide foreign military intervention in Syria or let a resolution be
exploited to permit the use of force. That complaint loses
credibility when Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton stipulates
publicly, as she did Tuesday that ‘there is no intention to seek any
authority or to pursue any kind of military intervention.’ It should be relatively easy to write a resolution to rule out military action, assuming Russia is not playing games.”
The Times editorial board suffers not only from short term but also from long term memory loss. Perhaps The New York Times forgets NATO’s games, and not only in Libya , eleven months ago, where NATO grossly violated the mandate given by resolution 1973. The Russians remember all to well how much credibility to accord Secretaries of State, such as Secretary of State James Baker’s assurance to Gorbachev that following the unification of Germany , “NATO will not expand one inch east of Berlin .” Today NATO encircles Russia . Former US Ambassador to Moscow Jack Matlock stated: “I was a witness to that, and we deceived Russia . Why then should they believe us now?”
The Times editorial board suffers not only from short term but also from long term memory loss. Perhaps The New York Times forgets NATO’s games, and not only in Libya , eleven months ago, where NATO grossly violated the mandate given by resolution 1973. The Russians remember all to well how much credibility to accord Secretaries of State, such as Secretary of State James Baker’s assurance to Gorbachev that following the unification of Germany , “NATO will not expand one inch east of Berlin .” Today NATO encircles Russia . Former US Ambassador to Moscow Jack Matlock stated: “I was a witness to that, and we deceived Russia . Why then should they believe us now?”
At
the January 31 high level meeting, British Foreign Secretary Hague may
have been among the most honest speakers, when he stated:
“This resolution does not propose imposing change on Syria from outside, it calls for the Syrian people to be allowed to make their choices. It does not call for military action and could not be used to authorize it. It does not contain coercive measures. Indeed, it is not a Chapter VII resolution. However, it should put the leaders of Syria on notice that measures will be considered by this council if there is not an immediate end to the violence and if the Arab League plan continues to be ignored. This threat is essential.”
The resolution in blue on February 2nd stated:
“PP10: noting that nothing in this resolution authorizes measures under Article 42 of the Charter,” and then goes on to conclude: “Decides to review implementation of this resolution within 21 days, and, in the event of non-compliance, to consider further measures.”
It
is an insult to the intelligence of the Russians and the Chinese to
expect them to be reassured by this devious wording which, once
accepted, requires them, within three weeks, to agree to consider those
Chapter VII “further measures” they today so wisely reject. Any child could decipher the implicit trap, and threat in the wording of the final draft resolution submitted to the capitals. Further,
in view of the picture given by the Observer Mission Report, it would
be categorically impossible for the Syrian authorities to comply, since
much of the violence within Syria is caused by the opposition. (Media
statements that “only” Russia, China and India oppose the Syria draft
resolution are bizarre, since, together Russia and China constitute 40%
of the Permanent Membership of the Security Council, and the combined
populations of Russia, China and India are over three billion people,
almost half the population of the world. The use of the
word “only,” deliberately suggesting that Russia and China are a
recalcitrant minority, recalls a BBC report which stated: “Storm over the English Channel . Continent isolated.”)
It
is important to understand the Russian-Chinese concern, because the
consequences of Security Council Resolution 1973 against Libya are
horrific, and in extreme violation of the so-called democracy and human
rights of Libyan civilians, which was used as the rationalization for the more than 7,000 NATO bombing missions against Libya .
Let us examine Libya today, as a result of Security Council Resolution 1973.
Human
Rights Watch, Amnesty International and Doctors Without Borders
(Medecins Sans Frontieres) can, by no stretch of the imagination, be
accused of being left-wing, commie stooges. Therefore,
their descriptions of rampant, systematic torture inflicted “by
officially recognized military and security entities in Libya,” as well
as “by a multitude of armed militias” in the cities of Tripoli,
Misusrata and Gheryan,” (The New York Times, January 27, page A4) should
alarm the US/NATO powers who sought the more than 7,000 NATO bombing
missions against Libya, ostensibly to protect the human rights of the
Libyan people. What is the Security Council doing at this
moment to protect the Libyan people from the tortures inflicted by the
“peaceful Libyan opposition” that NATO armed, trained supported and
brought to power in Libya? Where is the “Responsibility to Protect” the Libyan people now? Why
are certain members of the Security Council seeking to replicate their
support for dubious opposition groups in Libya with support of armed
extremists./ in Syria ? On February 4th 13
members of the Security Council expressed alarm about the thousands of
deaths in Syria, which the vetoed resolution S/2012/77 unfoundedly
blamed almost entirely on the Syrian government, despite the Report of
the League of Arab States Observer Mission, the only party with
objective information about the realities on the ground in Syria.
The New York Times, page 4, January 27th reports: “Doctors
Without Borders said Thursday that it would suspend its operations in
detention centers in Misurata, saying some of the 115 detainees it has
treated for torture-related injuries since August have been returned
repeatedly with more wounds. ‘Patients were brought to us
in the middle of interrogation for medical care, in order to make them
fit for further interrogation,’ said Christopher Stokes, the group’s
general director, in a statement. ‘This is unacceptable. Our
role is to provide medical care to war casualties and sick detainees,
not to repeatedly treat the same patients between torture session.’” “Human
Rights Watch documented ‘ongoing torture’ in Libyan detention centers
in the past six months, said Sidney Kwiran, an investigator for the
group. ‘Torture is used to force confessions or for punishment.’” “Fighters
from Misurata have continued to attack, detain, torture and in some
cases kill people from the town, even after they fled to other parts of
the country, refugees and activists said. Gheit Abubakr,
46, a Tawerghan at the Tripoli camp, carried his brother’s neatly folded
death certificate in the pocket of his overcoat, along with a dozen
photographs of his mutilated corpse....’They beat him to death, but he
didn’t do anything, he was not in the military and did not have a gun. He was a civilian.’”
Reuters: “In
Assabia...residents not involved in the fighting were kidnapped and
tortured, one to death, by Gharyan fighters....Ibrahim Mohammed, 23
stated... ‘During my interrogations my ankles were crushed in metal workshop clamps, and fingers and toes smashed with metal bars. I saw our main military commander lying on the floor in a pool of blood. He was barely breathing and they had tied a metal pole to his arms and legs and were giving him electric shocks.’ Ibrahim said. ‘Ezzedine-al-Ghool was tortured to death. His wife had given birth to a son the day before.’”
February 2, 2012, Reuters: “A
Libyan diplomat who served as Ambassador to France for Moamar Ghaddafi
died from torture within a day of being detained by a militia from
Zintan, Human Rights Watch said in a statement Friday... photos of
Brebesh’s body show welts, cuts, and the apparent removal of toenails. Brebesh,
62 served in the Libyan Embassy to France from 2004-2008, first as
cultural attaché, then as acting ambassador...’These abusive militias
will keep torturing people until they are held to account’...said Sarah
Leah Whitson, Middle East and North Africa director at Human Rights
Watch.”
On August 21, 2011, The New York Times reported: “Coordination
between NATO and the rebels, and among the loosely organized rebel
groups had become more sophisticated in lethal in recent weeks, even
though NATO’s mandate had been merely to protect civilians, not to take
sides in the conflict....At the same time, Britain, France and other
nations deployed special forces on the ground inside Libya to help train
and arm the rebels” in violation of the Security Council Resolution
1973, which prohibited NATO troops on the ground.
Concluding Remarks
The US/NATO powers are confronting an economic crisis brought on inevitably by the crisis of capitalism, a crisis which can no longer be resolved by war. The Russian-Chinese veto has in fact also helped protect the United States from the policies relentlessly urged by certain reckless and irresponsible members of the establishment in Washington, who would turn the United States into a military juggernaut leading to an all out World War. Lacking UN Security Council support, these reckless members of the establishment cannot claim that they represent the “International Community.” Carla Stea is a journalist holding press accreditation at the U.S. Department of State and the United Nations. Her articles have been published in the US, the UK, Latin America, Russia, and have appeared in Latin American Perspectives, Covert Action Quarterly, War and Peace Digest, Rock Creek Free Press, Komsomolskaya Pravda, Rabochaya Tribuna, Sovetskaya Rossia, Novosti Press, Baltexpert, and Tapol, Report on Human Rights in Indonesia.
The US/NATO powers are confronting an economic crisis brought on inevitably by the crisis of capitalism, a crisis which can no longer be resolved by war. The Russian-Chinese veto has in fact also helped protect the United States from the policies relentlessly urged by certain reckless and irresponsible members of the establishment in Washington, who would turn the United States into a military juggernaut leading to an all out World War. Lacking UN Security Council support, these reckless members of the establishment cannot claim that they represent the “International Community.” Carla Stea is a journalist holding press accreditation at the U.S. Department of State and the United Nations. Her articles have been published in the US, the UK, Latin America, Russia, and have appeared in Latin American Perspectives, Covert Action Quarterly, War and Peace Digest, Rock Creek Free Press, Komsomolskaya Pravda, Rabochaya Tribuna, Sovetskaya Rossia, Novosti Press, Baltexpert, and Tapol, Report on Human Rights in Indonesia.
