UN joined US effort to destroy Syria when it hired fanatic US warmonger Jeffrey Feltman on 7/2/2012. Since that date, wars have been “orchestrated in New York by the same institution that is supposed to prevent them [the UN]."...Feltman has been planning war in Syria since 2005 when he was a US "diplomat."...While still at State Dept. in Jan. 2012 before moving to UN in July 2012, overconfident Feltman commissioned “The Day After,” detailing spoils to be distributed in a post-Assad Syria.
[Image: 9/25/2014, Feltman, Obama, Kerry, Power listening to speech at UN, file photo, al-akhbar.com] 4/12/2018, “The end of international law?” Voltaire, by Thierry Meyssan
“The war in the Greater Middle East should end somewhere with the withdrawal of US troops in the next six months. [The author revised this view on 1/29/2019: “Israel and the United States have not abandoned their objective of a war to destroy [Syria’s] state structures. They are preparing a new war, this time financial, to prevent the reconstruction of the country and condemn the Syrians to languish in their ruins.”] However, there is nothing to indicate that there will be peace in any of the affected countries. Today we are witnessing what appears to be an attempt to end international law. Will this consolidate the division of the world into two blocks or will it lead to a general conflict?
Does the West want to break with its obligations under international law? That is the imminent question posed by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov at the international security conference in Moscow [1]. In recent years, Washington has always promoted the concept of “unilateralism.” International law and the United Nations would disappear for the power of the United States.
This concept of political life is the goal of the history of the United States. The settlers who came to America wanted to live there according to their own ideas and make a fortune there. Each community worked out its own legal principles and rejected the intervention of a central government in their local affairs. The President and Congress are responsible for defense and foreign affairs, but they do not accept greater power than that of its citizens.
Bill Clinton has attacked Yugoslavia through a reckless violation of international law. George Bush Jr. did the same against Iraq as Barack Obama did against Libya and against Syria [and as Trump does in Syria including illegally occupying one third of the country]. As for Donald Trump, he has never concealed his suspicion of supranational rules. Sergei Lavrov, referring to the Cebrowski-Barnett doctrine [2], stated [as US itself continually and enthusiastically confirms]: “We clearly feel that the United States wants to maintain a state of controlled chaos in this large geopolitical space [the Middle East], relying on it for their military presence in the region without justifying any time constraints to further promote and implement their agenda.”
The United Kingdom has also made its own laws. Last month [March 2018] it accused Moscow in the Skripal affair without the slightest evidence, and tried to bring together a majority of the UN General Assembly to get Russia to vote out of the Security Council. It would undoubtedly be much easier for the Anglo-Saxons to be able to unilaterally make laws without having to take into account the views of those who disagree with them.
Moscow never believed that London would take such an initiative. It was believed that it was still Washington that set the tone. “Globalization,” which they say means the worldwide spread of Anglo-Saxon values, has led to a class society among states. But this new problem should not be confused with the existence of the veto right. Certainly, the UN, which in any case always assumes the equality of all states, regardless of their size, confirmed within the Security Council the five permanent members who have veto rights. This board of directors has been a requirement in that respect since the Second World War, because they accept the principles of supranational law. If this administration [the Security Council] does not work properly, the general meeting can replace it. At least in theory.
The “worldwide spread of Anglo-Saxon values” ignores the sense of honor and self-esteem, only values the pursuit of profit, so that the correct weight of a nation in the future will only be measured by the economic development of that country. In recent years, only three countries have succeeded in gaining a public hearing based on their ideas and proposals rather than their economy: in particular Iran under Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (now under house arrest in their own country), Venezuela under Hugo Chavez and the Vatican.
For example, the confusion caused by these Anglo-Saxon values has led to the financing of intergovernmental organizations with private money. And as one step leads to another, for example, the Member States of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) have gradually given up their proportional power in favor of private telecom operators, united in an “advisory committee”.
‘Communication’ as a new name for ‘propaganda’ has left its mark on our international relations. From the US Secretary of State waving a bottle of pseudo-Antrax to the British Foreign Minister lying about the origins of Nowitschok of Salisbury, the lie has become the deputy for respect and causes widespread mistrust in the world.
During the first years of its establishment, the UN tried to ban ‘propaganda’, but today it is the permanent members of the Security Council who surrender to it. The worst occurred in 2012, when Washington succeeded in the nomination of one of its worst war-hawks, Jeffrey Feltman as the number two of the United Nations [3]. From that date, wars are orchestrated in New York by the same institution that is supposed to prevent them.
[Image: 7/2/2012, Jeffrey D. Feltman takes the oath before General Secretary Ban Ki-moon at his official swearing-in as #2 at UN]
Russia today wonders openly what the possible wish of the Western powers is to block the United Nations. If so, it would create an alternative institution itself, but there would no longer be a forum that would allow the two power blocks to discuss important matters.
Just like a society that is falling into chaos, where people start behaving like wolves towards other people once deprived of any regulations, the world will become a battlefield when it abandons international law.”
Thierry Meyssan
Translation
Johan Hallaert
.........
.........
[ 2 ] ” The pro-military of États-Unis pour le monde” , par Thierry Meyssan, Haiti Liberté (Haiti), Réseau Voltaire , 22 août 2017.
[ 3 ] ” Germany and the Uno [UN] against Syria “, by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Bart Ero, Al-Watan (Syria), Voltaire Network , January 29, 2016.
Thierry Meyssan
[ 3 ] ” Germany and the Uno [UN] against Syria “, by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Bart Ero, Al-Watan (Syria), Voltaire Network , January 29, 2016.
Thierry Meyssan
Added: US war machine needs censorship so US taxpayers remain ignorant and keep paying:
Naturally the "Prop or Not" censorship scam was the creation of four US government funded war propaganda outlets:
12/7/2016, "The NATO campaign against free speech." Voltaire, Thierry Meyssan (google translation from French)
"Launched by a controversial article from the Washington Post on November 24, 2016 [11 ], a mysterious group Propaganda or Not? made up a list of 200 internet sites - including Voltairenet.org - that were supposedly ordered by the Kremlin to relay Russian propaganda and poison American public opinion to the point of persuading them to vote for Trump.
Although Propaganda or Not? does not publish the names of those responsible, he says he brings four organizations together: Polygraph, The Interpreter, the Center for European Policy Analysis and the Digital Forensic Research Lab.
*Polygraph is a site of the Voice of America .
*The Interpreter is the review of the Institute of Modern Russia, now distributed by the Voice of America .
*The Center for European Policy Analysis is a pseudopod of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) [regime change group] conducted by Zbigniew Brzeziński [now deceased, 5/26/2017] and Madeleine Albright.
*Finally, the Digital Forensic Research Lab is a program of the Atlantic Council.
In a document published by Propaganda or Not?, This pseudo-ONG mentions the name of the enemy: Russia. It is accused of being at the cradle of the movement for truth about the 9/11 and of the internet sites that support Syria and Crimea.
The United States Congress adopted a law on December 2, 2016 prohibiting any military cooperation between Washington and Moscow."...
[Ed. note: This kind of foreign policy decision is an Executive branch function. In this case it belonged to the soon to be inaugurated Trump. Congress simply transferred presidential duties to itself. It wanted to show voters who's boss. Trump didn't have to abide by this since it isn't legal, but congress knows Trump is a giant coward and wouldn't challenge them much less fight for his now forgotten voters. Before he was even inaugurated, Trump's election and 63 million votes were effectively nullified. So much for "our democracy."]
(continuing): "In a few years, NATO has reactivated McCarthysm."
.............................
Original French:
12/7/2016, "The NATO campaign against free speech," Voltaire, Thierry Meyssan
........................
Comment: Solution? There's only one. To separate the war machine from US taxpayer cash, US must be broken up into parts.
Comment: Solution? There's only one. To separate the war machine from US taxpayer cash, US must be broken up into parts.
..............
No comments:
Post a Comment