UN Cardsharpers or Bloodthirsty Resolution

Por • 19 feb, 2012 • Sección: Internacionales

Alexander MEZYAEV

The UN General Assembly voted on the Syria draft resolution on February 16 in New York. 137 countries voted for the resolution and 12 against with 17 abstentions. Those who said «no» were the Russian Federation, China, Venezuela, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Cuba, Iran, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Syria, Bolivia, Zimbabwe and Belarus. While giving his comment on the results of the vote Vitaly Churkin, Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the United Nations, said the document didn’t meet the goal of cessation of violence: «the tendencies that cause our concerns: attempts to isolate the Syrian leadership, reject any contacts with it and impose a political settlement formula from outside.» The gist of Russian changes to the resolution was placing «non-contentious and reasonable demands on the opposition forces to disassociate themselves from the armed groups carrying out acts of violence as well as on these groups themselves to cease their attacks on residential areas and state institutions just as government forces must stop shelling towns and withdraw from populated areas,» he said. However the amendments were not taken into account. Churkin said, that under the circumstances Russia had no other choice than to vote against the draft (1). Speaking after the vote the Syrian representative asked to stop fuelling the conflict in response to calls «to stop killing peaceful demonstrators». The Syrian ambassador emphasized the resolution didn’t mention the need for the Syrian opposition to disassociate themselves from the armed groups and condemn terrorist acts what goes to show true intentions of the draft co-authors. He said «broken politically and morally» the Arab League had been kidnapped by the Gulf Cooperation Council countries (2).

As observers rightfully note the General Assembly resolutions are non-binding. This legal detail was stressed by Russian deputy Foreign Minister G. Gatilov (3). And there is one more thing of great importance. According to the UN Charter (article 12) the General Assembly shall not make recommendations when the dispute is being considered by the Security Council. This way the Western block and its Middle East allies simply violated the Charter. And the session was chaired by a representative of Australia – the country that is a co-author of the draft. A number of delegations asked for the reason why the issue out of the agenda was pushed through for consideration. There was no reply. Or, to be exact, they received pathetic attempts to explain it by saying «that’s the way we see it». In other words an outright sharp practice took place…

This time the draft had thirteen co-authors more than the «Moroccan draft» that had been submitted to the Security Council. This time Australia, Andorra, Hungary, Greece, Denmark, the Comoros Islands, Norway, Panama, Korea, Somalia, Finland, Croatia and Montenegro joined the «initiative group» (Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Libya, Qatar, Kuwait, Morocco, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Tunisia, Turkey, France, Britain and the USA). The Security Council’s draft was to demonstrate the «all Arabs stance». Now everything was done to involve the countries of all continents as co-authors to make an impression of greater representation and wider support for the draft.

Formally the draft was tabled by Egypt. Actually it repeats the February 4 «Moroccan draft» that had been submitted to the Security Council. Though the «Morrocan draft» condemns any violence «no matter where it comes from» the demand to stop it addresses the government only, leaving aside the opposition and moreover the terrorists. The gist of the resolution becomes clear in the clause «c» of paragraph 6 that envisages that the Syrian government «withdraw all Syrian troops and armed forces from cities and towns, and return them to the original home barracks». This is the most bloodthirsty condition aimed at making civilian deaths numbers as great as possible against the background of mass terror against peaceful population. Everyone who voted «yes» should understand it.

Clause «b» of the same paragraph should be paid attention on too. It says the Syrian authorities are to provide «allowance of full and free access and movement of international media to all parts of Syria in order to find the truth about the situation there and monitor ongoing incidents». In fact it suggests that the most bloody and destructive information war against Syria be started and war mongers be let enjoy full freedom.

Paragraph 2 of the resolution adopted is the most important one. It states as a fact ascertained that the Syrian authorities «continue widespread and systematic violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms, such as the use of force against civilians, arbitrary executions, killing and persecution of protestors, human rights defenders, and journalists, arbitrary detention, enforced disappearances, interference with access to medical treatment, torture, sexual violence, and ill-treatment, including against children» (4). The list is nothing else but a future indictment before the International Criminal Court (ICC). It’s not important Syria never ratified its status (and thus is not a member) – we’ve already seen how the cases were launched against non-members (Sudan, Libya). Cause 5 of the adopted UN General Assembly resolution clearly stressed «the need to ensure accountability for all violations, including those that may amount to crimes against humanity».

Probably the next step against Syria would be an attempt to refer the «case» to the International Criminal Court. It would be another challenge for Russia for the case transfer is possible solely through the Security Council. Perhaps a new veto provocation is ahead. Finally a new mass hysteria against Russia would be sparked trying to make Arab and other Muslim nations hate it. It should not be excluded that stoking the hatred (with all following and well understood consequences) is the main goal of the West, especially before and after the presidential election in the Russian Federation.

The hysteria is on the rise going far beyond the UN. Just recently one can remember the «spoof» spread by «international» media about chemical weapons used by Syrian authorities under control of Russian experts. Besides, the European parliament adopted two resolutions of outright anti Russian character on February 16. The first condemns Russia for use of veto right on February 14 and calls for cessation of arms deliveries to Syria. The European Council gave Catherine Ashton the commission to «ensure the adoption of the UN Security Council resolution», engaging Russia and China in consultations (5). The second condemned Russia for refusing to register Grigory Yavlinsky in the presidential elections (6). It’s interesting the content of this resolution included the condemnation of Russia’s stance on Syria too. The both resolutions were adopted the very same day. So at first glance the fact of repetition looks strange. But in reality the hint at interconnection of internal and external policies of Russia is absolutely clear.


(1) http://www.unmultimedia.org/tv/webcast/2012/02/ 97th-plenary –meeting –general –assembly .htm l

(2) The UN General Assembly press-release, February 16 2012, Document GA/11207

(3) http://www.fondsk.ru/news/2012/02/17/rossia-ne-podderzhit-predstavlennyj-v-oon-proekt-rezolucii-po-sirii.ht ml

(4) UN Document : А/66/L.36 February 14 2012.

(5) Situation in Syria. European Parliament resolution of 16 February 2012 on the situation in Syria (2012/2543(RSP)), // European Parliament official website:: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/portal/en

(6) Situation in Russia. European Parliament resolution of 16 February 2012 on the upcoming presidential election in Russia (2012/2505 RSP), // European Parliament official website: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/portal/en


Tags: UN Russia Syria USA


Post to Twitter

Etiquetado con: , , , ,

Escribe un comentario