Jump to content

Theme© by Fisana
 

Photo

lying whore For the jews still at it...US ready to ‘fight for justice’ in Syria without UN approval – Haley


  • Please log in to reply
30 replies to this topic

#1 Mario Milano

Mario Milano

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 23191 posts

Posted 18 November 2017 - 04:38 PM

US ready to fight for justice in Syria without UN approval Haley

Published time: 18 Nov, 2017

The US does not consider itself constrained by the United Nations Security Council and might seek justice in Syria on its own terms, the US representative to the UN, Nikki Haley, has said. The US took similar action in Libya in 2011.

With the unity of this council, or alone, unrestrained by Russias obstructionism, we will continue to fight for justice and accountability in Syria, Haley said, blasting Russias vetoing of the draft resolution on the extension of the Syrian chemical weapons probe on Friday.

The draft, proposed by Japan, envisioned the technical extension of the probe for another 30 days. Explaining Russias decision to block the resolution, Russian UN envoy Vasily Nebenzya said that there is no sense in prolonging the mission if some glaring flaws in its work are not amended.

"There can be no other way after the JIMs [the UN-OPCW Joint Investigative Mechanism] leadership disgraced itself with its fictitious investigation into the sarin use incident in Khan Shaykhun and signed off on baseless accusations against Syria, he said.

Haley went on to accuse Russia of showing no flexibility in negotiating the conditions of the probe, claiming that Moscow had only dictated and demanded while the US had incorporated elements of the Russian draft into its own in the hopes of reaching a consensus.

Russia vetoed the US draft on Thursday, with Nebenzya calling it unbalanced and solely designed to discredit Russia and its role in the Syrian settlement. Haley subsequently accused the Russian mission of ignoring the US delegation's attempts to contact it before the vote.

Haleys remarks on the impossibility of reaching the Russian mission provoked an angry reaction from Moscow, with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov calling it fake diplomacy. Lavrov said that "it seems we are witnessing a new phenomenon in international relations, as now, apart from fake news, there is also fake diplomacy."

The rival draft was co-sponsored by Russia and China, and aimed at the extension and qualitative improvement of the fact-finding mission, according to Nebenzya. However, it also failed, gaining the support of only four Security Council members.

While both Russia and the US used their veto powers on the respective resolutions, Haley accused Moscow of obstructing the work of the UNSC and its efforts to find the truth.

Russia has repeatedly criticized the UN-OPCW Joint Investigative Mechanism (JIM)s report on the chemical incident in Khan Shaykhun as being filled with omissions, inconsistences and contradictions. It also says it does not follow standard procedures for an impartial inquiry as it relies on questionable testimonies provided by rebels and NGOs, some of which are suspected of links to terrorists. In particular, it pointed to experts refusal to visit the site of the attack despite security guarantees.

In 2011, the US intervened in the region to curb the violence in the ongoing civil war in Libya. Under the pretext of a UN mandate to establish a no-fly zone in the country and save civilian lives, the US-led NATO coalition waged a full-fledged campaign that eventually resulted in the slaughter of former Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi and multiple civilian deaths, the number of which varies from 72, according to Human Rights Watch, to more than 1,000 in unconfirmed reports. The country is still in tatters and the war involving tribes and militants is ongoing.

Despite the UN not giving the greenlight for a full-fledged campaign in Syria, US Defense Secretary James Mattis claimed that the organization sanctioned action there, justifying it with the struggle against Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) terrorists. Damascus has repeatedly blasted the US for operating on Syrian territory without its consent and in violation of international law, and views the US presence as an invasion.

https://www.rt.com/u...ice-without-un/
  • 0

#2 Ivan88

Ivan88

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 12186 posts

Posted 18 November 2017 - 04:40 PM

 " Haley accused Moscow of obstructing the work of the UNSC and its efforts to find the truth."

 

To her, "Truth" is whatever US politicians lust after in service to their Talmudic masters.


Edited by Ivan88, 18 November 2017 - 04:51 PM.

  • 0

#3 wirehaired

wirehaired

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 12486 posts

Posted 18 November 2017 - 04:43 PM

That Slag should zip her mouth,i said it many times the only thing that will civilize those bastards is when they are confronted on the ground and in the air.         


Edited by wirehaired, 18 November 2017 - 04:44 PM.

  • 0

#4 Mario Milano

Mario Milano

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 23191 posts

Posted 18 November 2017 - 04:48 PM

That Slag should zip her mouth,i said it many times the only thing that will civilize those bastards is when they are confronted on the ground and in the air.


They don't mind lotsa american kids being killed for jew wars.....their Greater Israel plan must move forward doesn't matter how many americans die in the process
  • 0

#5 Ivan88

Ivan88

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 12186 posts

Posted 18 November 2017 - 04:49 PM

That Slag should zip her mouth,i said it many times the only thing that will civilize those bastards is when they are confronted on the ground and in the air.         

Won't do any good. There are 1000 ready to take their place.

One has to deal with underlying power that manipulates all these loud mouth politicians.

And, this cannot be done as long as we refuse to confess our usurpation of His throne in highest place of our being, repent & reform our minds, hearts & bodies in Perfect Obedience to His Will, Intent, Purpose, Plan, Desire & Word.


Edited by Ivan88, 18 November 2017 - 04:50 PM.

  • 0

#6 Desther

Desther

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5181 posts

Posted 18 November 2017 - 04:53 PM

Of course the Russians want to suppress any investigation into the war crimes committed by their pet dictator :rolleyes:


  • 0

#7 Mario Milano

Mario Milano

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 23191 posts

Posted 18 November 2017 - 04:57 PM

Of course the Russians want to suppress any investigation into the war crimes committed by their pet dictator :rolleyes:


Lay off the captagon rabbi..you are starting to sound more and more like an ISIS rat
  • 0

#8 grog

grog

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2016 posts

Posted 18 November 2017 - 04:58 PM

To maintain demand for an intrinsically worthless dollar, the mighty U.S. military, (based all over the planet) is used to ensure all international oil sales be paid for in dollars. 
 
Yes, they are based there for defense - defense of the Petrodollar.
 
The 'enemy' are all those countries that are free of the Petrodollar tyranny.
For example, Syria.
 
 
 
 
 

  • 0

#9 grog

grog

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2016 posts

Posted 18 November 2017 - 05:09 PM

 

To maintain demand for an intrinsically worthless dollar, the mighty U.S. military, (based all over the planet) is used to ensure all international oil sales be paid for in dollars. 
 
Yes, they are based there for defense - defense of the Petrodollar.
 
The 'enemy' are all those countries that are free of the Petrodollar tyranny.
For example, Syria.
 
 
 
 
 

 

 

Petro_Gold.jpg?width=500

 

"ditch that dollar - go for gold"


  • 0

#10 Ivan88

Ivan88

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 12186 posts

Posted 18 November 2017 - 07:54 PM

Did President Trump secretly announce war against Lebanon?

After all, we know He's best friends with Talmudists in Palestine & Aabia, yes?

 

Back in July, President Trump "told Prime Minister Saad Hariri during a meeting at the White House that ... "Lebanon is on the front lines in the fight against [the Islamic State group], al-Qaeda, and Hizballah.  .... we've been discussing this at great length..." Trump told Hariri. https://www.alaraby....hting-Hizballah

War is likely to be the scheme considering that Hariri's resignation supposedly puts Hezbollah in charge of Lebanon, and this is excuse to extend war on Syria to Lebanon.


Edited by Ivan88, 18 November 2017 - 07:56 PM.

  • 0

#11 wirehaired

wirehaired

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 12486 posts

Posted 18 November 2017 - 08:03 PM

Of course the Russians want to suppress any investigation into the war crimes committed by their pet dictator :rolleyes:

well, we all know any leader of a Country who the US wants to take down is a War Criminal,behave yourself.


  • 2

#12 Nemesis

Nemesis

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 18779 posts

Posted 18 November 2017 - 08:54 PM

Of course the Russians want to suppress any investigation into the war crimes committed by their pet dictator :rolleyes:

 

 

You seriously don't believe the crap that you're writing.  Dr. Assad is NOT a dictator nor has he committed war crimes.  His army is composed of Syrians who are defending their very own mothers, fathers, grandparents, sisters, brothers, wives and children.

 

Perhaps you feel sorry for the damn head chopping jihadis that had their asses blown apart I suspect?


  • 1

#13 R.W. Emerson II

R.W. Emerson II

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 55 posts

Posted 18 November 2017 - 10:31 PM


It is not enough to complain, lament, whine, bemoan, etc.. 
 
Fascism is a satanic system.  It inverts the moral code and inverts reality.  Everything good -- e.g., investigations -- gets turned into a weapon, an instrument of evil.
 
Some people here wonder why I have chosen Lenin as my avatar: It is because the Leninists offered the deepest most comprehensive repudiation of the cancer in the West.  Nothing but a return to "communism" -- reformed or reinvented -- can stop this cancer. 
 
When Russia acts as a mere nation, it becomes susceptible to the dynamics that led to World War I -- nation versus nation.  Acting as a race, ethnicity or tribe is even worse.  Russia desperately needs to appeal to something larger!  That larger element is the working class worldwide.
 
PzTQOuM.png
 
Image: Imgur


  • 1

#14 Ivan88

Ivan88

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 12186 posts

Posted 19 November 2017 - 03:37 AM

Thanks, Comrad Emerson for that great diagram/picure you posted.

I can sympathize with all of it.

However to divide issue between Communism & Fascism is to miss real issue.

Both isms were designed to plunder most people for a few.

These isms were designed also to pit nation against nation as in World War 2.

An entirely un-necessary Armageddon.

There are 2 basic reasons for these disasters.

  1. Wrong (stupid) thinking & actions by general population & elites.

2. Those who bring Judgment via dialectical conflicts where   both sides are controlled by same entity or entities.


  • 2

#15 Mario Milano

Mario Milano

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 23191 posts

Posted 19 November 2017 - 04:05 AM

Good post Ivan...been saying it for ages, commis, nazi, fascsm.....i
They are all run by the same khazar bankers.....get half the people to support one side the other half to support the other then all hell breaks loose...all planned, divide and conquer...

Same as this stupid left and right in politics...divide and conquer...they are both controlled by the same parasite
  • 1

#16 Ivan88

Ivan88

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 12186 posts

Posted 19 November 2017 - 05:10 AM

Good post Ivan...been saying it for ages, commis, nazi, fascsm.....i
They are all run by the same khazar bankers.....get half the people to support one side the other half to support the other then all hell breaks loose...all planned, divide and conquer...

Same as this stupid left and right in politics...divide and conquer...they are both controlled by the same parasite

Glad to hear it.  It's called dialectics. It is also the same as theatre where you start with a conflict that rises to a climax followed by a resolution, & bankers sell tickets, popcorn, ammunition, etc., and the actors volunteer to get killed.

In scene below, Professor Moriarty says the nations want war, and he just wants to sell them bandages & bullets.


Edited by Ivan88, 19 November 2017 - 05:11 AM.

  • 1

#17 Mario Milano

Mario Milano

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 23191 posts

Posted 19 November 2017 - 06:01 AM

Good stuff ivan..

Don't forget they are also dividing societies with their feminazi crap...men vs women

Edited by Mario Milano, 19 November 2017 - 06:02 AM.

  • 0

#18 Ivan88

Ivan88

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 12186 posts

Posted 19 November 2017 - 07:46 AM

Prophet Isaiah said that when males won't be Men, then females and children rule over them.  Isaiah 3:4 & 12

" I will give children to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them." 

"As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths."


  • 0

#19 Nemesis

Nemesis

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 18779 posts

Posted 19 November 2017 - 06:34 PM

Russia outsmarts Nikki Haley in UN Security Council debate

 

 

Majority of UN Security Council members fail to vote against Russian draft Resolution severely criticising conduct of OPCW-UN-JIM

 

 

 

by picture-for-Sputnik.jpeg?zoom=1.5&fit=40ALEXANDER MERCOURIS

November 17, 2017, 20:23

 

 

 
haley-nebenzia.jpg?fit=758%2C426
 

 

The events at the United Nations Security Council surrounding the joint OPCW-UN-JIM investigation  report (“the report”) into the alleged Khan Sheikhoun chemical weapon attack are not being widely reported.

 
 
 

This is unfortunate because they show that international opinion is swinging heavily against the report, which has lost credibility.

 

Here an account of what happened on the two most recent occasions when the UN Security Council discussed this issue is necessary.

 

On 24th October 2017 the Russians vetoed at the UN Security Council a resolution to extend the OPCW’s mandate in Syria.  They complained that the resolution presented to the UN Security Council to extend the OPCW’s mandate had been brought forward in haste before its report had been provided to the UN Security Council.   They pointed out that this was obviously inappropriate and appeared intended to led authority to the report before it was published. They said that there was actually no need to bring forward a resolution to extend the OPCW’s mandate in that way, and that the more correct time to bring such a resolution forward was after the report had been submitted to the UN Security Council for its consideration.

 

 

The Russians during the 24th October 2017 UN Security Council session also severely criticised the methodology used to prepare the report by the OPCW-UN-JIM team, pointing out that it was being prepared without inspections of the two sites in Syria relevant to an understanding of the incident: Khan Sheikhoun itself, where the attack allegedly took place, and Al-Sharyat air base, from where the attack was allegedly launched.

 

At this point it is necessary to say that the current structure of the UN Security Council means that the US can normally rely on a built-in majority in any vote in the UN Security Council.  In the overwhelming of cases where resolutions are presented to the UN Security Council the US can rely on the well-nigh automatic support of 9 to 10 of its members, which is enough to pass a resolution where there is no veto.

 

Though this proved to be the case with the resolution presented to the UN Security Council on 24th October 2017, the account of the discussion around the resolution provided by the United Nations press centre shows that the Russian concerns – both about the seeming haste in bringing the resolution forward, and concerning the flawed methodology being used to prepare the OPCW-UN-JIM report – were widely shared even by some states which voted for the US backed resolution.

 

The two strongest statements expressing such doubts were made by the ambassadors of Ethiopia and Egypt, both of who are normally reliable US allies.

 

Here is how the UN press centre reports the comments of the Ethiopian ambassador

(bold italics added)

 

TEKEDA ALEMU (Ethiopia) expressed regret that the Council had not been able to adopt the draft resolution since the Mechanism had been created on the basis of consensus.  Ethiopia had voted in favour of the text because there remained credible allegations of chemical weapons use in Syria, he said, adding that renewing the mandate should ensure continuity of the Mechanism’s work.  Despite today’s outcome, Ethiopia was hopeful that the Council’ unity would be restored and compromise found, because failure to renew the mandate would be send the wrong message to the perpetrators. 

 

 

However, today’s outcome should not be interpreted as an a priori endorsement of the Mechanism’s report, he cautioned, emphasizing that its final version was expected to establish clear responsibility for the two incidents mentioned.  Those responsible for the use of chemical weapons should be punished on the basis of robust and conclusive evidence, he said, underlining, however, that it was impossible to overlook the concerns of the Russian Federation and Bolivia, which was the reason why politicization must be avoided.

 

 

And here is how the UN press centre reports the comments of the Egyptian ambassador

 

AMR ABDELLATIF ABOULATTA (Egypt) said he had voted in favour of the draft because of his country’s interest in ensuring that those involved in using chemical weapons in Syria were identified.  The use and growing proliferation of chemical weapons in that country posed a threat to security in the region and around the world, he said, noting the non-existence of an international system to deter non-State groups from acquiring such weapons. 

 

 

The Mechanism’s methodologies must be improved and sites in Syria visited, he said, adding that conducting such visits and collecting available evidence in a timely manner would help in creating a strong foundation for any findings to be issued.  The Council could still renew the Mechanism’s mandate and improve its methodology, he said, emphasizing that its work must be carried out in an impartial and independent manner, and must not be politicized.

(bold italics added)

 

In the voting over the resolution two states voted against it – Russia and Bolivia – and two abstained – China and Kazakhstan.

 

It is however clear from their comments (see above) that if they had felt wholly free to vote as they wished, Ethiopia and Egypt would either have voted against it or would have abstained.

 

That would have brought the majority in support of the US backed resolution down to just nine, which is the bare majority needed to pass a resolution in the absence of a veto.

 

Ethiopia and Egypt were not prepared to go so far.  The US is known to take careful note of how states vote in the UN Security Council.  With Ethiopia and Egypt both heavily dependent on the US for aid, they were not prepared to risk their relationship with the US by openly defying it on an issue of such importance.  However, as their comments show, their ambassadors nonetheless made their true feelings clear.

 

In the weeks that followed the OPCW-UN-JIM report was duly submitted to the UN Security Council.  I do not propose to discuss this report in any detail because its flaws have already been thoroughly discussed and analysed by Rick Sterling.

 

My own quick observations about the OPCW-UN-JIM report are

 

(1) no attempt was made to inspect the site of the alleged chemical attack in Khan Sheikhoun;

 

(2) no inference was drawn from the supposed security concerns which allegedly prevented such an inspection of the alleged site of the attack in Khan Sheikhoun from taking place;

 

(3) no inference was drawn from the apparent tampering of the siteafter the alleged attack (eg. by the concreting over of the bomb crater alleged to have been caused by the alleged attack); and

 

(4) no attempt was made to inspect Al-Sharyat air base – the site from which the alleged chemical weapons attack was allegedly launched – despite the fact that the security concerns which supposedly prevented an inspection of the Khan Sheikhoun site did not apply there.

 

Instead, in the absence of such inspections of the two sites relevant to an understanding of the supposed incident, the report relied wholly

 

(5) on eye-witness evidence, though this has been repeatedly shown to be unreliable;

 

(6) on video evidence, which is also generally acknowledged to be unreliable;

(In both cases there are or should be particular concerns about the use of this sort of evidence in this case given that it was provided in both cases by individuals operating in an Al-Qaeda controlled area)

and

 

(7) on sampling obtained through a chain of custody which is widely acknowledged to be insecure, and which also originated and was collected without proper or independent supervision in an Al-Qaeda controlled area.

 

The video evidence as it turns out is inconclusive (it does not show the attack) and the eye-witness evidence – obtained from witnesses in an Al-Qaeda controlled area – suffers from time discrepancies that the report is unable to resolve.

 

As has been pointed out elsewhere, there is even some reason to think that some of the individuals who were supposedly victims of the alleged attack were admitted to hospital before the earliest time that the attack could have taken place.

 

Such a report has inevitably come in for a great deal of criticism from the Russians, who have rejected it, and have called it unprofessional.

 

The key point about UN Security Council session on 16th November 2017 (yesterday) is that it shows the extent to which these criticisms are gaining traction.

 

Two draft resolutions were presented to the UN Security Council on 16th November 2017, one by the US and one by Russia.

 

With its built-in majority the US was initially successful in preventing the Russian drafted resolution from being put to the vote.  It being obvious that the UN Security Council would not vote for the Russian drafted resolution the Russians withdrew it.

 

However, stung by criticism of the methodology used to prepare the OPCW-UN-JIM report, the US does appear to have conceded some cosmetic changes to the text of its resolution.  However these proved unacceptable to the Russians.

 

The Russians accordingly vetoed the resolution, voting against it together with Bolivia, with China and on this occasion Egypt abstaining.

 

Up to this point events had followed what has become the established pattern of debates within the UN Security Council.

 

The US – relying on its built-on majority – proposes a resolution on Syria or Ukraine or some other issue, which it knows Russian cannot accept and will vote against.  That gives the US and other Western ambassadors an opportunity to grandstand at Russian expense.  The ambassadors of the non-aligned states look on with ill-concealed disapproval, making clear in coded language their unhappiness that the UN Security Council is being used in this way. 

 

However they then vote for the US proposed resolution through gritted teeth, ensuring that their concerns go unreported in the Western media. The Chinese ambassador makes clear his support for Russia but when the final vote comes usually abstains.  The Russians give as good as they get, and veto the resolution as the US always expected.  The Western media then writes up the story of how Russia was “isolated” in the UN Security Council, and round on Russia for being obstructive.  Occasionally there is even a portentous article saying Russia should be stripped of its veto.

 

That was not what happened yesterday, and it was what happened after the Russians vetoed the US backed resolution which led to events no longer following the usual pre-arranged script.

 

Though the Russians had previously withdrawn their resolution in the knowledge that the UN Security Council would never vote for it, it was re-presented – undoubtedly by prearrangement with the Chinese and the the Russians – to the UN Security Council by the Bolivian ambassador once voting on the US draft resolution was out of the way.

 

On this occasion the three Eurasian states – Russia, China and Kazakhstan – all voted for the Russian drafted resolution along with Bolivia.

 

However only six or possibly seven states backed the US by voting against it – the US, Britain, France, Ukraine, Italy and Sweden, and possibly Uruguay.

 

Significantly it seems that all four of what are sometimes called the non-aligned states – Ethiopia, Egypt, Senegal and Uruguay – abstained, along with Japan – a US ally, which also abstained – even though all of these countries are in reality allies of the US.

 

(NB: there is an error in the UN press centre’s summary of the vote on the Russian backed resolution.  It says that Japan both voted against and abstained in the vote on the resolution, which is of course impossible.  In fact it seems clear that Japan abstained, an event so surprising that it knocked the UN press centre’s note takers off-balance, causing them to report Japan’s vote wrongly in one place in their summary as a vote against.  The UN press centre’s summary also fails to report Uruguay’s vote, though it is likely that it too abstained).

 

The summary of the debate provided by the United Nations press centre vividly captures the quality of the whole debate

 

The United States draft on extending the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons‑United Nations Joint Investigative Mechanism was rejected due to the negative vote of a permanent member following a vote of 11 in favour to 2 against (Bolivia, Russian Federation), with 2 abstaining (China, Egypt).  Had it been adopted, it would have extended the Mechanism’s mandate — established by resolution 2235 (2015) and set to expire tomorrow, 17 November — for a further one year.

 

The Bolivian draft on extending the Mechanism, also for one year, was rejected after first being tabled by the Russian Federation and withdrawn.  The text was rejected by a vote of 4 in favour (Bolivia, China, Kazakhstan, Russian Federation) to 7 against (France, Italy, Japan, Sweden, Ukraine, United Kingdom and United States) with 4 abstaining (Egypt, Ethiopia, Japan, Ukraine).  It would have welcomed what it called the “full and profound cooperation” extended by the Syrian Government to the Mechanism and the other group investigating chemical attacks, the fact‑finding mission.

 

Regretting the lack of visits to the sites of chemical incidents, and lack of full chain of custody of evidence and other methodological factors that might cast doubt on the Mechanism’s conclusions, the Russian draft tabled by Bolivia would have requested that investigative teams be dispatched to Khan Shaykhun and the Shayrat airbase, subjects of the most recent report of the Mechanism.  It would have requested the Mechanism to collect and analyse information on use by non‑State actors of chemical weapons, and to submit to the Council analytical reports every three months.  It would have also called for greater focus on the use of non‑State weapons by non‑State actors.

 

In addition to the provisions contained in the draft that failed on 24 October (see Press Release SC/13040), the United States draft would have underscored the ongoing importance of the Mechanism conducting its investigations according to high methodological standards and basing its findings on the evidentiary levels outlined in its first report.  It would have encouraged the Mechanism to consult United Nations bodies on counter‑terrorism and non‑proliferation to exchange information on attacks by non‑State actors.  It also would have encouraged the Mechanism to inform the Council of any inability to gain access to sites relevant to investigations.

 

The Russian draft was withdrawn before either text was voted on, after a Russian Federation proposal that its draft be voted on after the United States draft was rejected in a procedural vote.  It was tabled by Bolivia after the rejection of the United States draft and statements after that vote.  Before and after the voting, all Council members condemned the use of chemical weapons and called for accountability for perpetrators through professional, impartial investigation.

 

In multiple statements, the supporters of the draft, however, said that today’s procedure pushed that goal back by not guaranteeing the continuity of the Mechanism.  The representative of the United States said that the Russian Federation had struck a deep blow to the effort, killing the Mechanism and eliminating its ability to identify attackers and deter future attacks. 

 

She accused the Russian delegation of playing games with its procedural moves and not consulting with other delegations to come up with a compromise.  The representative of the United Kingdom stated that the goal of the Russian Federation was to scuttle the Mechanism because it simply could not accept any investigation that attributed guilt to its Syrian ally.

 

Italy’s representative, voting for the United States draft and against the Russian and Bolivian text, recounted the extensive negotiations that had gone into the United States draft to ensure that all concerns were addressed.  He said that the outcome weakened the security architecture and was difficult to merely accept.  He pledged continued work to ensure the investigations continued, however.

 

Japan’s representative, having voted for the United States draft and abstaining from voting on the Russian text, stressed that despite the procedures, the Council was still responsible to act to prevent further use of chemical weapons and to provide accountability for attacks in Syria.  He urged Council members to work to find consensus on renewing the Mechanism.

 

The representative of the Russian Federation, in multiple statements, said that the flaws in the operations of the Mechanism were not concretely addressed in the United States draft, but were addressed in his text.  He expressed disappointment that the initiative for extending and qualitatively improving the Mechanism had failed to secure the requisite support. 

 

Calling the way the votes had occurred an effort to disparage his country, he said various tricks would now be used to pin the cessation of the Mechanism’s activity on his country.  Noting that his delegation had been accused of not taking part in consultations, he said that they had met three times with the United States colleagues.

 

Similarly, the representatives of China and Bolivia expressed their strong desire for the continuance of the Mechanism, but an equally strong wish that concerns over methodology be addressed.  Both therefore voted for the Russian text, with Bolivia voting against the other draft and China abstaining.

 

Speaking before the first vote were Bolivia, Russian Federation and the United States.  Speaking after that vote were the United States, France, Sweden, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Bolivia, Ethiopia, Kazakhstan, Senegal, China, Japan, Egypt, Russian Federation, Italy and Syria.

 

Speaking before the vote on the second draft were Bolivia, Russian Federation and the United States.  Speaking after that vote were Egypt, Ukraine, Japan, China, Russian Federation and Bolivia.  The Russian Federation spoke a final time after those speakers.

 

The meeting began at 3:15 p.m. and closed at 5:49 p.m.  During that period the meeting was suspended for 15 minutes after the first vote and the comments following it.

Note that nine members of the UN Security Council (or eight if Uruguay voted with the US) – in other words a majority – either voted for or declined to vote against a Russian drafted resolution which

 

…..[welcomed] ……the “full and profound cooperation” extended by the Syrian Government to the Mechanism……[regretted] the lack of visits to the sites of chemical incidents, and lack of full chain of custody of evidence and other methodological factors that might cast doubt on the Mechanism’s conclusions….requested that investigative teams be dispatched to Khan Shaykhun and the Shayrat airbase….[and] requested the Mechanism to collect and analyse information on use by non‑State actors of chemical weapons, and to submit to the Council analytical reports every three months…..[and] called for greater focus on the use of non‑State weapons by non‑State actors.

 

Following this vote it is impossible to say that there is a majority supporting the OPCW-UN-JIM report in the UN Security Council or that Russia is in a minority in criticising it.  Not surprisingly, after this debacle yesterday’s debate in the UN Security Council has gone almost entirely unreported in the Western media.

 

Not surprisingly US ambassador Nikki Haley was furious, as her outraged comments show

 

Ms. HALEY (United States) said that Bolivia had tried to pull one over on the Council by calling for the vote in the way it had.  She added that flaws were only found in the Mechanism when evidence pointed to Syria.  No flaws were found when evidence pointed to ISIL/Da’esh.  Neither the Russian Federation nor Bolivia consulted with others on their procedures; they were playing games.  She regretted that the whole procedure was embarrassing for the Council. 

 

The Russian Federation wanted a Mechanism that they could micromanage.  Today’s developments had proven that the Russian Federation could not be trusted as a broker in Syria.  The rejected resolution had all the changes that had been requested and the United States and all other members had been disrespected.  The next chemical attack would be on the head of the Russian Federation.

 

There are two important facts to take away from this affair.

 

Firstly, despite some heroic attempts to argue otherwise, the methodology of the OPCW-UN-JIM report is quite simply too obviously flawed for it to gain widespread international acceptance

.

In reality – as I have said previously – a truly impartial investigation to find out what actually happened in Khan Sheikhoun in April this year became impossible the moment President Trump launched his missiles against Al-Sharyat air base a few days after the supposed attack took place.

 

From that point the whole international prestige of the United States and of its NATO allies who had supported the US attack became bound up with a finding that the Syrian government had launched a chemical weapons attack on Khan Sheikhoun.

 

Any other finding would have been politically impossible and acceptable, and given the hold the US and NATO powers have over the international bodies charged with carrying out international investigations (whose budgets they largely fund) it is completely unsurprising that the OPCW-UN-JIM investigation was structured to ensure that only the “correct” finding was made.

 

What happened in this case was that the flaws built into the investigation in order to ensure that it would come up with the “correct” finding were in the end simply too glaring, and could not be ignored even by countries which are normally supportive of the US.

 

Secondly, there were some concerns in Russia a few months ago when the country’s brilliant ambassador to the UN Vitaly Churkin died unexpectedly that he would prove to be irreplaceable.

 

The skill with which Vasily Nebenzia, Russia’s new ambassador to the UN, outwitted Nikki Haley yesterday, and the forceful way in which he made Russia’s case both during yesterday’s debate and during the previous debate on 24th October 2017, shows that these fears are groundless.

 

Nebenzia is clearly a fully worthy successor to Churkin, even if he perhaps lacks something of Churkin’s urbanity and charm.  The other ambassadors will have taken note of the fact.

 

As to what actually took place in Khan Sheikhoun in April 2017, I doubt that we will ever know the full truth.

 

I continue to think that the most plausible scenario is the one proposed by Seymour Hersh on the basis of what he says he was told by a senior US intelligence official: that a Syrian bombing raid targeting some Al-Qaeda commanders inadvertently released a toxic cloud as a result of the release of materials held in the building in which the Al-Qaeda commanders were meeting.  Since the chain of custody of the forensic samples used to prove that it was instead a sarin attack is insecure, I don’t think it is possible to place any reliance on them.

 

The suggestion that Seymour Hersh’s story is untrue because he cannot identify the building in question is a red herring.  Seymour Hersh’s story is not based on personal observation of Khan Sheikhoun but on information he says he was provided by his sources within the US intelligence community.  Seymour Hersh provided Die Welt (which published his story) with the details of these sources, enabling Die Welt to contact them directly and to authenticate that what Seymour Hersh was saying about them was true.

 

As I have said previously, it is well within the ability of Al-Qaeda to manipulate or fabricate evidence and to manipulate the way it is presented, and it continues to astonish me that so many people remain in denial about this.

 

I note for example that the person who attempted to uphold the findings of the OPCW-UN-JIM report which I mentioned previously appears to be unaware that it was Al-Qaeda which was in physical control of Al-Sheikhoun on the day when the chemical weapons attack is supposed to have taken place, and that it continues to be in control there to this day.

 

Others will of course dispute these opinions, as is their right.

 

The point however is that politically speaking it no longer matters.  Following the debate in the UN Security Council yesterday the effect of what happened in Khan Sheikhoun in April both on the course of the Syrian war and on the future development of international relations has ended.  The chapter on this incident is closed.

 

http://theduran.com/...khan-sheikhoun/


  • 0

#20 Mario Milano

Mario Milano

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 23191 posts

Posted 19 November 2017 - 09:22 PM

Nikki Haley Rage


By Stephen Lendman
stephenlendman.org
11-18-17

Long ago, Washington had respectable UN ambassadors, including Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., Adlai Stevenson, Arthur Goldberg, and Andrew Young.

Few Americans likely remember GHW Bush’s tenure in the post - from March 1, 1971 - January 18, 1973.

Earlier days are long gone, notably post-9/11 with neocons John Negroponte, John Bolton, Zalmay Khalilzad, Susan Rice, Samantha Power, and likeminded others serving as UN envoys.

Current incumbent Nikki Haley is the worst of the lot, an embarrassment to the office she holds, an over-the-top loose cannon, an imperial lunatic, a geopolitical know-nothing, a Russophobic extremist - representing America’s ugly face, its ruthless agenda, its imperial madness.

Addressing the Security Council on Friday, she dispensed with diplomatic niceties and hard truths, devoting her remarks entirely to an anti-Russia tirade in response to its veto of Washington’s unacceptable resolution on extending the OPCW/UN Joint Investigation Mechanism (JIM).

Its text included a provision for invoking the UN Charter’s Chapter VII, authorizing “action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security.”

It ignored the JIM’s biased, one-sided conclusions, lacking credibility, what Russia called sloppy and “amateurish,” failing to conform to international standards.

Washington vetoed Russia’s responsible resolution to continue JIM work the way it should have been done the first time, including on-site inspections, instead of accepting so-called evidence from anti-government sources, entirely lacking credibility.

Haley went wild, saying “Russia is wasting our time. Conflicts are raging. Outlaw states are acquiring nuclear weapons. The human dignity of millions is violated every day. Brutal regimes are using chemical weapons on their own people.”

All of the above applies to America and its rogue allies. North Korea has nuclear weapons as a deterrent against genuinely feared US aggression. Haley didn’t explain.

Instead she roared “(a)s we have long suspected, Russia does not now and has never had any intention of making this time productive for this Council and the international community.”

Russia’s veto…shows us that Russia has no interest in finding common ground with the rest of this council to save the JIM.”

“Russia will not agree to any mechanism that might shine a spotlight on the use of chemical weapons by its ally, the Syrian regime.”

Fact: No evidence proves Syrian use of CWs any time throughout years of US-launched aggression.

Fact: Plenty of evidence shows ISIS, al-Nusra and other US-supported terrorist groups used them numerous times, Syria falsely blamed.

Fact: Pentagon contractors trained terrorists in Jordan on CW use.

Haley: “Russia’s actions - today and in recent weeks - have been designed to delay, to distract, and ultimately to defeat the effort to secure accountability for chemical weapons attacks in Syria.”

FALSE!

Haley: “Russia never invited Council members to provide input on its own draft resolution…”

FALSE!

Haley: “Russia declined to propose any textual edits to the US draft. We even incorporated elements of the Russian draft into our own in the hope that they would engage with us.”

FALSE!

Haley: “Indeed, from the very beginning, Russia has not negotiated with any of us. Russia has just dictated and demanded. That’s not how the Security Council is supposed to work. That’s not how the Security Council can work.”

FALSE along with shamefully accusing Russia of “obstructionism.”

Haley’s entire rant was a disgraceful perversion of truth, an exercise of deception.

Britain and France go along with whatever Washington proposes or opposes, voting the same way.

So do most other Security Council members under duress. Defying Washington means facing its wrath, including destabilizing their countries or more sinister tactics.

America wants all independent leaders replaced by pro-Western puppets, serving its interests.

Its imperial wars, color revolutions and political assassinations have a common objective - why Washington and its rogue allies are humanity’s greatest threat.
  • 2




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Copyright © 2017 Pravda.Ru