The horrific war in Syria continues to worsen and bleed beyond its borders. A cold calculation seems to be taking hold: that little can be done except to arm the parties and watch the conflict rage.
...But the international community must not abandon the people of Syria and the region to never-ending waves of cruelty and crisis. The following six points can chart a principled and integrated way forward.
[source : Ban Ki Moon, Six vital steps to peace in Syria, The Guardian, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/26/six-steps-to-peace-syria-united-nations-ban-ki-moon, 26th June 2014]
You see, most people are unaware of the decision reached in 2007 that Saudi Arabia would unleash cutthroat Jihadis onto Syria. This decision was taken after Saudi Arabia had supplied the patsies for the inside job 9/11, which was supposed to kick off a series of wars in North Africa and The Middle East to extinguish resistance to the NATO/Zionist occupation and resource-grabbing.
However, things didn't go to plan. By 2007 seven nations were supposed to have seen war and regime change, but only Iraq had seen both of these.
So what Ban Ki Moon is doing is isolating the conflict in Syria as if it is a one-off, when in fact the conflict in Syria is one in a series of conflicts agreed decades ago in the corridors of London, Tel Aviv, Washington and Brussels.
But still, Ban's six points do make several references to external meddling, but do not recognise that Syria as a sovereign state is under attack in a covert war.
Point 1: Ending the Violence
It is irresponsible for foreign powers to give continued military support to parties in Syria that are committing atrocities and flagrantly violating fundamental principles of human rights and international law. I have urged the United Nations security council to impose an arms embargo. The sides will have to sit across from each other again at the negotiating table. How many more people must die before they get there?
This is point 1, and therefore reasonable to assume that this is the most important point. Ban is very direct in his reference to foreign powers "flagrantly violating fundamental principles of human rights and international law".
However in Point 4 he makes no reference to bringing these foreign powers to justice, and instead laments the recently defeated resolution that called for Assad to be brought before the ICC, as if Assad had started all the violence when all he ks doing is defending his sovereign country from foreign invaders...and with the backing of the vast majority of Syrians!!
Point 4: Ensuring accountability for serious crimes
Last month, a resolution that aimed to refer the conflict to the international criminal court failed to pass the security council. I ask those member states that say no to the ICC, but say they support accountability in Syria, to come forward with credible alternatives. The Syrian people have a right to justice and action against impunity.
In Point 5 Ban praises the destruction of Syria's chemical weapons, but like The Guardian he makes no reference to destroying Israel's much more powerful, horrific and destructive arsenal of WMDs.
Point 5: Finishing the destruction of chemical weapons in Syria
The UN and the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons have worked together to destroy or remove from the country all of the declared materials in a once large arsenal. Many member states have provided critical resources and support for this challenging task, which was undertaken in an active war zone and which will now be completed at various destruction facilities outside Syria. While almost all of the killing in Syria is being done with conventional weapons, it has been essential to reinforce the global norm banishing the production and use of chemical weapons.
Ban then regains some sense of neutrality and sanity by again referring to the growing threat of terrorism in Syria, calling for religious and political leaders in the region to refrain from escalating the spiral of violence.
Point 6: Addressing the regional dimensions of the conflict, including the extremist threat
Foreign fighters are in action on both sides, increasing the level of violence and exacerbating sectarian hatreds. While we should not blindly accept the Syrian government's demonisation of all the opposition as terrorists, neither should we be blinded to the real threat of terrorists in Syria. The world must come together to eliminate funding and other support for Jabhat al-Nusra and the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham. The latter is also a threat to all communities in Iraq. It is crucial for the region's leaders, political and religious, to call for restraint and to avoid a spiral of attack and reprisal.
I assume that this reference to "Foreign fighters are in action on both sides, increasing the level of violence and exacerbating sectarian hatreds" is in reference to Hezbollah. If so then this again shows Ban's lack of respect for a sovereign state, and explains why he is Sec Gen of the UN, an organisation formed from two engineered world wars for the purpose of creating a world government.
Let's get this straight. Syria is a sovereign nation. Syria is under attack. It can ask for help from whoever it wants. It is not up to Ban Ki Moon to say who it can and cannot ask for help, It is not up to the USA either. Nor Great Britain. Nor Israel. Nor NATO. Nor Saudi Arabia. Nor any of the other Friends of Syrian Terrorists like Qatar.
And the same goes for Iraq. If Iraq wants help from Syria and Russia to destroy terrorists with no strings attached then that is Iraq's decision. Not America's.
However, if Obama wants to fund cutthroat Jihadis with a half billion dollars then he must live with that decision when he, not Assad or Putin, is brought to the ICC.
No comments:
Post a Comment