Quo vadis?

Presumimos que el siguiente artículo, aparecido en estos días en el semanario suizo Current Concerns, va a ser estrictamente censurado por la prensa corporativa occidental. Su autor es Hans Christoph von Sponeck. No se lo pierdan.

Título: Quo vadis NATO?

Texto: "Human rights, military operations, geopolitical interests are three NATO slogans raising three important  questions: 1. Human rights for whom? 2. Military operations by whom and on whose behalf? 3. Is it a matter of geopolitical interests or global political decisions?

NATO 1949

The Washington Agreement of 1949 (NATO treaty) had required the “peaceful” resolution of conflicts  and declared that the geopolitical interests of the transatlantic alliance would not reach beyond the borders of NATO member states!

The NATO treaty pointed to the fact that NATO states accepted United Nations law (the Charter of the United Nations) as binding and that they accepted subsidiarity. This means that human rights apply to everyone, that the NATO countries’ geopolitical interests are limited to their territory, and that military operations are only allowed when it is about the defense of the NATO area. Nevertheless, there was already then a caveat for NATO: The NATO states were to decide whether the UN Security Council had taken the “right” steps. If, in their opinion, this was not the case, they would act within the meaning of Article 5 of the NATO treaty – without reference to Article 51 of the UN Charter.

This shows that from the very beginning NATO leadership thought in the same way as they act today! This means that today as well as in the past they have always questioned the monopoly right of the UN Security Council, since the Council is the only body that has the right to decide whether to intervene either with military or else with other means.

NATO 2013

In the 64 years since NATO’s founding international relations have considerably changed. The NATO of 12 states in 1949 has turned into the NATO of 28 states in 2013. NATO has installed itself increasingly as a global security policy establishment in these years of hyper-linking. “We are prepared to develop political dialogue and practical cooperation with any nations and relevant organisations across the globe that share our interest in peaceful international relations,” reads the NATO strategy of 2010.

Furthermore, NATO insists that it is their job to deal with all the major national issues of military and human (!) security. Energy security is a first priority in this sense. US Senator Lugar went a step further when he emphasized that NATO could intervene militarily according to Article5 of its Statute, if some NATO states’ access to energy sources was threatened somewhere in the world. However, it would mean a serious violation of international law, if this actually happened.

There is not much left of a NATO subsidiarity within the United Nations in the year 2013! The result is a network of 28 nations that are linked by “Partnerships for Peace” (PfP) worldwide. A variety of former USSR states is involved. There is a dialogue agreement with Mediterranean states. By means of the so-called “Istanbul Initiative” the countries of North Africa and the Middle East are included in the NATO agenda. Particular connections exist between NATO and the Gulf States plus Yemen. Furthermore there is a lose cooperation between the Israeli navy and the naval forces of NATO. Special agreements were settled between NATO and Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, New Zealand and Australia. The world’s two largest drug producers, Colombia and Afghanistan, cooperate with NATO. Britain, which still owns the San-Diego islands in the Indian Ocean, has leased them to the United States. The local military bases are used by NATO for deployments.

On behalf of NATO the US is currently trying to intensify its military relations with Vietnam, Myanmar and East Timor. Similar attempts are made in the area of the five Central Asian states. In Liberia the “US Africom” was recently deployed in Monrovia after having been withdrawn from Stuttgart. In most  regions where there are no land bases, NATO is represented by ships of the US Navy. Strategic presence and a visible embrace of China and Russia continue to be perfected. It should not come as a surprise that this brings along serious consequences for international relations!

The NATO enlargement is associated with the non-declared goal of weakening others, especially of alliances such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). “Gladio”, the mysterious underground organization of western states, which already existed in the times of the Cold War, is an indication for the means that are used, even if they are not legal. Developments in recent years have shown an ever more expanding, but also increasingly weaker NATO. Defeats in Afghanistan and Iraq, a war against Yugoslavia in violation of international law and an invasion of Iraq that had not been approved by the UN Security Council have become milestones of NATO’s weakening. 

The serious violation of the four GenevaConventions and the Hague Conventions by the mistreatment of prisoners at Bagram, Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo as well as US flights transporting prisoners to secret prisons in order to torture them in other countries, are additional causes of this weakening. The abuse of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) – handed over to NATO in 2011 by the UN Security Council for the welfare of the civilian population in Libya – and the actions of individual NATO states in the Syria crisis have significantly added to resistance against NATO.

New provocations such as the establishment of a network of missile defense systems in Spain, Poland, Romania, Turkey and Germany met with Russia’s legitimate resistance and withdrew the NATO-Russia Council’s confidence base.

What is the explanation for NATO’s development between 1949 and 2013?

The dissolution of the Soviet Union in December 1991, the resulting independence of the 12 Soviet republics and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact – along with the signing of the Charter of Paris for a New Europe following in November 1990 – bore the great opportunity of replacing the Cold War by a warm peace. In many places, there was talk of the expected “peace dividend”. It turned out differently. 

NATO did not dismiss itself to history; it was rather looking for a new raison d’être. The administration of George W. Bush and the other neoconservative circles in the US, inspired by the belief in an  “American Century” (Project for a new American Century – PNAC) lying before them, wanted to maintain NATO under US leadership. The 11th September 2001 encouraged the political circles in Washington to justify the American claim to hegemony. This “PNAC psyche”, i.e. the belief in the leadership of the United States, existed across all parties before and after the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in New York. The European NATO member states and Canada were prepared to act as
willing stooges.

In parallel, under American leadership NATO has developed continuously from a defensive alliance, protecting those who lived within the community, into an alliance with a global order. The NATO strategies from 1991, 1999 and 2010 prove this in clear language, according to the motto: new threats justify new approaches. “NATO is the most capable and effective political-military alliance in the world” was said in November 2010, when the latest NATO strategy was presented in Lisbon. It was no secret that it was aboutthe “security” and the “freedom” of NATO now amounting to 28 member states; it was hardly about the welfare of the other 165 UN member states. How else are we to explain NATO’s anti-satellite systems in Europe and Asia or the NATO inspections of merchant vessels in international waters?  

Further examples are NATO military exercises at crisis points of intersection such as on the Korean peninsula and elsewhere. It is all about selfishness and hubris. It is for these reasons that a large part of the remaining world repeatedly draws the existence of this transatlantic community into question.

Closest and excessive connections (“hyper-connectivity”) and networks at many levels have led to a significantly stronger polarization in international relations, which has its origin in the aggressive appearance of NATO. NATO, continually thinking in a unipolar way, is facing a growing multi-polar opposition. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) are two examples of security alliances that respond to NATO’s development. “We are experiencing an almost unrestricted use of military force, which plunges the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts!” These are the words of the Russian president Vladimir Putin spoken in 2007. Since then, the level of confrontation between NATO and an increasing number of countries in Asia, Latin America and also in Africa and the Middle East has continued to rise. The conflicts with Libya (2011) and Syria (since 2011), the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan (since 2001) as well as the US-led invasion violating international law and the eight years’ occupation of Iraq (2003–2011) have significantly contributed to the polarization of international relations.

The obvious double standards of NATO, the egotism of the Alliance, the political corruption of individual NATO states and the repeated offense against international law have played an important role in this case. The deliberate spread of misinformation by government institutions aiming at influencing the national and international public adds up to all that. Just to mention only one of the many political examples: the performance of US Secretary of Defense Colin Powell on 5 February 2003 in the UN Security Council. In the presence of UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, Director General of theIAEA Mohamed ElBaradei and the Commissioner for Iraq’s disarmament and head of UNMOVIC Hans Blix, Powell obeyed his government’s order to forward the evidence that Iraq under President Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. This was a serious misdirection, because not only professionals knew that Iraq was highly disarmed in 2003 and could no longer pose a threat. There was no protest from NATO circles! The present High Representative of the UN indirectly supported the subsequent US-led invasion of Iraq by their silence and thus were complicit.

Basic theses on the question: Quo vadis NATO?

NATO “defense” 
The approach of NATO under the pretext that the community must defend itself against an enemy often has to do with provocations generated by NATO itself. That is, it is not uncommon to look at NATO itself as the cause of a crisis. An important example is the anti-satellite initiative of the United States connected with NATO’s eastern expansion. The response, the symptom, is made the cause here. Once the NATO finished with such a provocation, the “defense” would become unnecessary!

Global Change
Signs are increasing that the world is rapidly turning away from unipolar politics and considers a much more nuanced paradigm for international relations. This process brings new obstacles to international cooperation, but also new opportunities. In the interest of international security, a peaceful development, human rights for all, and especially developing international trust would mean that alliances such as NATO and the SCO give up their narrow security approaches and agree to a world-wide cooperation. Such a development does not need to remain a utopia when it is recognized that the common features of the 193 member states of the UN are the better alternative. 

Chapter VIII: “Regional arrangements”of the UN Charter
The integration of the alliances’ tasks in the responsibility of the United Nations is accepted by all UN Member States. It is, therefore, an international legal obligation and should not be dismissed as utopian, but be supported as an objective by persistent negotiations and UN reform discussions. The existing – and recognized– NATO capacity could supply valuable contributions to crisis management and peace as a result of integration (subsidiarity). Wars in space, terrorism, piracy, drug and human trafficking could be overcome by means of cooperation in the spirit of Chapter VIII. 

UN reform
The security-political responsibilities for the global, regional and local development lie with the Security Council of the United Nations, not with NATO. Structural weaknesses of the UN have increasingly meant that the Security Council has become unable to perform this function. The crisis in Syria is another serious example of incompetence and thus a dangerous reality threatening world peace. Proposals for fundamental reforms have not been lacking. For over twenty years report on report has been published on this subject.

The international community has so far lacked the political will to reconsider these proposals, adopt them  according to plan and implement them. This includes primarily the reform of the UN Security Council. Valuable considerations for the customized composition of the Security Council, for the status of  membership, for the right to veto or the majority voting rights, subsidiarity issues of alliances such as NATO, etc. have already been made.

Accountability
The framework for international cooperation is largely defined by the UN Charter and the two International Covenants on political, civil, economic, social and cultural rights. Compliance with this recorded international law is mandatory for all states that are members of the United Nations, and thus also for NATO states. In reality, however, there is a culture of impunity. Decisions in the UN Security Council or in other forums, which have led to serious violations of human rights, remain without consequences for the decision-makers. The consequences of an inhumane sanctions policy, enforced by NATO member states in the UN Security Council in the case of Iraq, the NATO war against Yugoslavia, the illegal invasion of Iraq or the NATO mission in Libya are all empirically verifiable. Accountability is a prerequisite for a new beginning of international relations. The road to peace, which NATO should take, is known. Once the NATO recognizes this path itself, a healing process will begin."

Dignidad

¿Querían saber qué cosa es la dignidad? Acá va el discurso completito del Ministro de Relaciones Exteriores de Siria, Salid al-Moallem, en ocasión de la participación de ese país en las reuniones de Ginebra 2 en Montruex, Suiza. Lo sacamos de la Agencia Arabe Siria de Noticias (sana.sy). Sí, ya sé, está en inglés; suele ocurrir.  Sí, son siete páginas, no aptas para twitteros. Pero no se lo pierdan; es uno de esos documentos que huelen a Historia. Entre tanta basura desinformativa, entre tanta pavada embrutecedora, alguien habla.

Título: Geneva2 begins with paticipation of Syria's offical delegation, headed by al-Moallem 

Texto: “Montruex, (SANA) - The international conference on Syria, Geneva2, kicked off on Wednesday morning with the participation of Syria's official delegation, headed by Deputy Premier, Foreign and Expatriates Minister, Walid al-Moallem. Minister al-Moallem said at the opening session of the conference:   

Ladies and Gentlemen, On behalf of the Syrian Arab Republic –steeped in history for seven thousand years– proud of its steadfast pan-Arab heritage despite the deliberate acts of aggression of supposed brotherly Arabs –a civil state that some, sitting in this room, have tried to return to medieval times. Never have I been in a more difficult position; my delegation and I carry the weight of three years of hardship endured by my fellow countrymen - the blood of our martyrs, the tears of our bereaved, the anguish of families waiting for news of a loved one -kidnapped or missing, the cries of our children whose tender fingers were the targets of mortar shelling into their classrooms, the hopes of an entire generation destroyed before their very eyes, the courage of mothers and fathers who have sent all their sons to defend our country, the heartbreak of families whose homes have been destroyed and are now displaced or refugees.

My delegation and I carry the hope of a nation for the years to come

My delegation and I also carry the hope of a nation for the years to come – the right of every child to safely go to school again, the right of women to leave their homes without fear of being kidnapped, killed or raped; the dream of our youth to fulfill their vast potential; the return of security so that every man can leave his family safe in the knowledge that he will return.

Finally, today, the moment of truth; the truth that many have systematically tried to bury in a series of campaigns of misinformation, deception and fabrication leading to killing and terror.  A truth that refused to be buried, a truth clear for all to see – the delegation of the Syrian Arab Republic representing the Syrian people, the government, the state, the Army and the President - Bashar al-Assad.

It is regrettable that seated amongst us are representatives of countries that have the blood of Syrians on their hands

It is regrettable, Ladies and Gentlemen, that seated amongst us today in this room, are representatives of countries that have the blood of Syrians on their hands, countries that have exported terrorism along with clemency for the perpetrators, as if it was their God given right to determine who will go to heaven and who will go to hell.  Countries that have prevented believers from visiting holy places of worship whilst abetting, financing and supporting terrorists.  Countries that gave themselves the authority to grant and deny legitimacy to others as they saw fit, never looking at their own archaic glasshouses before throwing stones at acclaimed fortified towers. Countries that shamelessly lecture us in democracy, in development and in progress whilst drowning in their own ignorance and medieval norms.  Countries that have become accustomed to being entirely owned by kings and princes who have the sole right to distribute their national wealth granting their associates whilst denying those who fall out of favor. 

They lectured Syria – a distinguished, virtuous, sovereign state, they lectured her on honour whilst they themselves were immersed in the mud of enslavement, infanticide and other medieval practices.  After all their efforts and subsequent failures, their masks fell from their quivering faces, to reveal their perverse ambitions.  A desire to destabilize and destroy Syria by exporting their national product: terrorism.  They used their petrodollars to buy weapons, recruit mercenaries and saturate airtime covering up their mindless brutality with lies under the guise of the so-called “Syrian revolution that will fulfill the aspirations of the Syrian people.” 

Ladies and Gentlemen, how is what has happened and continues to plague Syria, meeting these aspirations?  How can a Chechen, Afghani, Saudi, Turkish or even French and English terrorists deliver on the aspirations of the Syrian people, and with what? An Islamic state that knows nothing of Islam except perverse Wahhabism? Who declared anyway that the Syrian people aspire to live thousands of years in the past?

In Syria, the wombs of pregnant women are butchered and their foetuses killed

In Syria, Ladies and Gentlemen, the wombs of pregnant women are butchered and their foetuses killed; women are raped, dead or alive, in practices so heinous, so vile and repulsive that they can only be attributed to their perverse doctrine.  In Syria, Ladies and Gentlemen, men are slaughtered in front of their children in the name of this revolution; worse still, this is done whilst the children of these foreign perpetrators sing and dance.  In Syria, how can so-called revolutionaries cannibalize a man’s heart and claim to promote freedom, democracy and a better life?

Under the pretext of the “Great Syrian Revolution,” civilians, clergymen, women and children are killed, victims are indiscriminately blown up in streets and buildings regardless of their political views or ideologies; books and libraries are burned, graves are dug up and artifacts stolen.  In the name of the revolution, children are killed in their schools and students in their universities, women are extorted in the name of jihad al-nikah and other forms, mosques are shelled whilst worshipers kneel at prayer, heads are severed and hung in the streets, people are burned alive in a true holocaust that history and many countries will deny without being accused of anti-Semitism. 

In the name of a revolution, “to free the oppressed Syrian people from the regime and to spread democracy,” does a father blow himself up with his wife and children to prevent foreign intruders from entering his home?  Most of us in this room are fathers - I ask you then, what would compel a man to kill his own family to protect them from freedom fighting monsters.  This is what happened in Adra, a place that most of you have not heard of but where the same alien monsters attacked: killing, looting, beheading, slaughtering, raping and burning people alive.  

You have heard nothing of this brutality for sure, yet you have heard of other places where the same heinous crimes were committed and where the same blood soaked finger was pointed at the Syrian Army and government.  And when these flagrant lies were no longer credible, they stopped spinning their web of deceit.

This is what their masters ordered them to do, these countries that spearheaded the war against Syria, trying to increase their influence in the region with bribes and money, exporting human monsters fully soaked in abhorrent Wahabi ideology, all at the expense of Syrian blood.  From this stage, loud and clear, you know as well as I do that they will not stop in Syria, even if some sitting in this room refuse to acknowledge or consider themselves immune.

Ladies and Gentlemen, everything you have heard would not have been possible, had our border sharing countries been good neighbours during these challenging years.  Unfortunately they were far from it; with backstabbers to the North, silent bystanders to the truth in the West, a weak South accustomed to doing the bidding of others, or the tired and exhausted East still reeling from the plots to destroy it along with Syria. 

Misery and destruction, wich has engulfed Syria, has been made possible by the decision of Erdogan’s government

Indeed, this misery and destruction, wich has engulfed Syria, has been made possible by the decision of Erdogan’s government to invite and host these criminal terrorists before they entered into Syria.  Clearly, oblivious to the fact that magic eventually turns on the magician, it is now beginning to taste the sour seed it has sown.  For terrorism knows no religion, and is loyal only unto itself.   Erdogan’s government has recklessly morphed from a zero problems with its neighbours policy to zero foreign policy and international diplomacy altogether, crucially leaving it with zero credibility.

Nevertheless, it continued on the same atrocious path falsely believing that the dream of Sayyid Qutb and Mohammad Abdel Wahab before him was finally being realized.  They wreaked havoc from Tunisia, to Libya, to Egypt and then to Syria, determined to achieve an illusion that only exists in their sick minds.  Despite the fact that it has proven to be a failure, they nevertheless are still determined to pursue it.  Logically speaking, this can only be described as stupidity, because if you don’t learn from history, you will lose sight of the present; and history tells us: if your neighbor's house is on fire, it is impossible for you to remain safe.

Some neighbours started fires within Syria whilst others recruited terrorists from around the globe – and here we are confronted with shockingly farcical double standards: 83 nationalities are fighting in Syria - nobody denounces this, nobody condemns it, nobody reconsiders their position - and they impertinently continue to call it a glorious SYRIAN Revolution!  While when a few scores of young resistant fighters supported the Syrian Army in a few places, all hell broke loose and it suddenly became foreign intervention!  Demands were made for the departure of foreign troops and the protection of Syrian sovereignty and for it not to be violated.  Here I affirm, Syria - the sovereign and independent state, will continue to do whatever it takes to defend herself with whatever means it deems necessary, without paying the least bit of attention to any uproar, denunciations, statements or positions expressed by others.  These have been and always will be Syria’s sovereign decisions.

They imposed sanctions on our food, our bread and our children’s milk

Despite all of this, the Syrian people remained steadfast; and the response was to impose sanctions on our food, our bread and our children’s milk.  To starve the population, pushing them into sickness and death under the injustice of these sanctions.  At the same time, factories were looted and burned, crippling our food and pharmaceutical industries; hospitals and healthcare centers were destroyed; our railroads and electricity lines sabotaged, and even our places of worship - Christian and Muslim – were not spared their terrorism. 

When all of this failed, America threatened to strike Syria, fabricating with her allies, Western and Arab, the story about the use of chemical weapons, which failed to convince even their own public, let alone ours.  Countries that celebrate democracy, freedom and human rights regrettably only choose to speak the language of blood, war, colonialism and hegemony.  Democracy is imposed with fire, freedom with warplanes and human rights by human killing, because they have become accustomed to the world doing their bidding: if they want something, it will happen; if they don’t, it won’t.  They have heedlessly forgotten that the perpetrators who blew themselves up in New York follow the same doctrine and come from the same source as those blowing themselves up in Syria.  They have heedlessly forgotten that the terrorist that was in America yesterday is in Syria today, and who knows where he will be tomorrow.  What is certain, however, is that he will not stop here.  Afghanistan is an ideal lesson for anyone who wants to learn – anyone!  Unfortunately, most do not want to learn; neither America nor some of the ‘civilized’ western countries that follow its lead, starting from the city of lights to the kingdom over which “the sun never set,” in the past; despite the fact that they have all felt the bitter taste of terrorism in the past.

And then suddenly they became “Friends of Syria.”  Four of these ‘friends’ are autocratic, oppressive monarchies that know nothing of a civil state or democracy, whilst others are the same colonial powers which occupied, pillaged and partitioned Syria less than one hundred years ago.  These so called ‘friends’ are now convening conferences to publicly declare their friendship with the Syrian people, whilst covertly facilitating their hardship and destroying their livelihoods.  They openly express their outrage over the humanitarian plight of Syrians whilst deceiving the international community of their complicity.  If you were truly concerned about the humanitarian situation in Syria, you would remove your strangle hold on her economy by lifting the sanctions and the embargo, and by partnering with her government in tightening security by fighting the influx of weapons and terrorists. Only then can we assure you that we will be well as we once were, without your deep concern for our wellbeing.

Some of you may be asking yourselves: Are foreigners the sole manufacturers of the happenings in Syria?  No Ladies and Gentlemen, Syrians amongst us here, having been legitimized by foreign agendas, have played a contributing role as facilitators and implementers.  They did this at the expense of Syrian blood and the people whose aspirations they claim to represent, whilst they themselves were divided hundreds of times and their leaders on the ground were fleeing far and wide.  They sold themselves to Israel becoming her eyes on the ground, and her fingers on the trigger for Syria’s destruction; and when they failed, Israel intervened directly to reduce the capabilities of the Syrian Army and thus ensuring the continued implementation of her decades old plan for Syria.

Our people were being slaughtered while opposition figures legitimized by foreign agendas were living in five star hotels

Our people were being slaughtered while they were living in five star hotels; they opposed from abroad, met abroad betraying Syria and selling themselves to the highest foreign bidder.  And yet, they still claim to speak in the name of the Syrian people! No, Ladies and Gentlemen, anyone wishing to speak on behalf of the Syrian people cannot be a traitor to their cause and an agent for their enemies.  Those wishing to speak on behalf of the people of Syria should do so from within her borders: living in her destroyed houses, sending their children to her schools in the morning not knowing if they will return safe from mortar shelling, tolerating the freezing cold winters because of the shortage in heating oil and queuing for hours to buy bread for their families because sanctions have prevented us from importing wheat when we were once exporters.  Anyone wanting to speak in the name of the Syrian people should first endure three years of terrorism, confronting it head on, and then come here and speak on behalf of the Syrian people.

Ladies and gentlemen, the Syrian Arab Republic – people and state, has fulfilled its duties.  It has welcomed hundreds of international journalists and facilitated their mobility, security and access; and they in turn have reflected the stark and horrific realities they witnessed to their audiences, realities that have perplexed many Western media organisations who couldn’t bear their propaganda and narrative being exposed and contradicted.  The examples are too many to count.  We allowed international aid and relief organizations into the country, but the clandestine agents of certain parties sitting here, obstructed them from reaching those in dire need of aid.  They came under terrorist attack several times, whilst we, as a state, did our duty in protecting them and facilitating their work.  We issued numerous amnesties and released thousands of prisoners, some even members of armed groups, at the anger and dismay of their victim’s families; these families though, like the rest of us, ultimately accepted that Syria’s interests come before anything else, and hence we must conceal our wounds and rise above hatred and rancor.

What have you done, you who claim to speak on behalf of the Syrian people. Where is your vision for this great country? Where are your ideas or your political manifesto?  Who are your agents of change on the ground other than your armed criminal gangs?  I am certain that you have nothing and this is only too apparent in the areas that your mercenaries have occupied or to use your words “liberated.” 

In these areas, have you freed the population or have you hijacked their moderate culture to enforce your radical and oppressive practices?  Have you implemented your development agenda by building schools and health centres?  No, you have destroyed them and allowed polio to return after it had previously been eradicated in Syria.  Have you protected Syria’s artifacts and museums?  No, you have looted our national sites for your personal profit.  Have you demonstrated your commitment to justice and human rights?  No, you have enforced public executions and beheadings.  In short, you have done nothing at all except muster the disgrace and shame of begging America to strike Syria.  Even the opposition, over which you are the self-appointed masters and guardians, do not acknowledge you or the methods in which you manage your own affairs, let alone the affairs of a country. 

A country they want to homogenize; not in the sectarian, ethnic or religious sense, but rather in a warped ideological sense.  Anyone against them, whether Christian or Muslim, is an infidel; they killed Muslims of all sects and targeted Syrian Christians with severity.  Even nuns and bishops were targeted, kidnapping them after they attacked Ma’loula, the last community that still speaks the language of Jesus Christ.  They did all this to force Syrian Christians to flee their country.  But little did they know, that in Syria we are one.  When Christianity is attacked all Syrians are Christians, when mosques are targeted all Syrians are Muslims.  Every Syrian is from Raqqa, Lattakia, Sweida, Homs or the bleeding Aleppo when any one of these places is targeted.  Their abhorrent attempts to sow sectarian and religious sedition will never be embraced by any levelheaded Syrian.  In short, Ladies and Gentlemen, your “glorious Syrian revolution” has left no mortal sin uncommitted.

There is another side to this dark gloomy picture.  A light at the end of the tunnel shinning through the Syrian people’s determination and steadfastness, the Syrian Army’s courage in protecting our citizens and the Syrian state’s resilience and perseverance.  During everything that has happened, there are states that have shown us true friendship, honest states that stood on the side of right against wrong, even when the wrong was clear for all to see.  On behalf of the Syrian people and state, I would like to thank Russia and China for respecting Syria’s sovereignty and independence.  Russia has been a true champion on the international stage strongly defending, not only with words but also with deeds, the founding principles of the United Nations of respecting the sovereignty of states.  Similarly China, the BRICS countries, Iran, Iraq and other Arab and Muslim countries, in addition to African and Latin American countries, have also genuinely safeguarded the aspirations of the Syrian people and not the ambitions of other governments for Syria.

The Syrian people, like other people of the region, aspire to more freedom, justice and human rights

Yes, Ladies and Gentlemen, the Syrian people, like other people of the region, aspire to more freedom, justice and human rights; they aspire to more plurality and democracy, to a better Syria, a safe, prosperous and healthy Syria.  They aspire to building strong institutions not destroying them, to safeguarding our national artifacts and heritage sites not looting and demolishing them.  They aspire to a strong national army, which protects our honour, our people and our national wealth, an army that defends Syria’s borders, her sovereignty and independence.  They do not, Ladies and Gentlemen, aspire to a mercenary army ‘Free’ to kidnap civilians for ransom or to use them as human shields, ‘Free’ to steal humanitarian aid, extort the poor and illegally trade in the organs of living women and children, ‘Free’ to canibalise human hearts and livers, barbequing heads, recruiting child soldiers and raping women.  All of this is done with the might of arms; arms provided by countries, represented here, who claim to be championing “moderate groups”.  Tell us, for God’s sake, where is the moderation in everything I have described? 

Where are these vague moderate groups that you are hiding behind?  Are they the same old groups that continue to be supported militarily and publicly by the West, that have undergone an even uglier face-lift in the hope of convincing us that they are fighting terrorism?  We all know that no matter how hard their propaganda machine tries to polish their image under the name of moderation, their extremism and terrorism is one and the same.  They know, as we all do, that under the pretext of supporting these groups, al-Qaeda and its affiliates are being armed in Syria, Iraq and other countries in the region. 

This is the reality, Ladies and Gentlemen, so wake up to the undeniable reality that the West is supporting some Arab countries to supply lethal weapons to al-Qaeda.  The West publically claims to be fighting terrorism, whilst in fact it is covertly nourishing it.  Anyone who cannot see this truth is either ignorantly blind or willfully so in order to finish what they have begun.

Is this the Syria that you want? The loss of thousands of martyrs and our once cherished safety and national security replaced with apocalyptic devastation. Are these the aspirations of the Syrian people that you wanted to fulfill?  No, Ladies and Gentlemen, Syria will not remain so, and that is why we are here.  Despite all that has been done by some, we have come to save Syria: to stop the beheadings, to stop the cannibalizing and the butchering.  We have come to help mothers and children return to the homes they were driven out of by terrorists.  We have come to protect the civil and open-minded nature of the state, to stop the march of the Tatars and the Mongols across our region.  We have come to prevent the collapse of the entire Middle East, to protect civilization, culture and diversity, and to preserve the dialogue of civilizations in the birthplace of religions.  We have come to protect tolerant Islam that has been distorted, and to protect the Christians of the Levant.  We are here to tell our Syrian expatriates, to return to their home country because they will always be foreigners anywhere else, and regardless of our differences we are all still brothers and sisters. 

We have come to stop terrorism as other countries that have experienced its bitter taste have done, whilst affirming loudly and consistently that a dialogue between Syrians is the only solution; but as with other countries that have been struck by terrorism, we have a constitutional duty to defend our citizens and we shall continue to strike terrorism that attacks Syrians regardless of their political affiliations.  We have come to hold those accountable, for as long as particular countries continue to support terrorism, this conference will bear no fruit.  Political pluralism and terrorism cannot coexist in the same landscape.  Politics can only prosper by fighting terrorism; it cannot grow in its shadow.

Nobody has the authority to grant or withdraw legitimacy from a president, a government, a constitution, a law or anything else in Syria except Syrians themselves

We are here as representatives of the Syrian people and the state; but let it be clear to all, – and experience is the best proof – that nobody has the authority to grant or withdraw legitimacy from a president, a government, a constitution, a law or anything else in Syria except Syrians themselves; this is their constitutional right and duty.  Therefore, whatever agreement is reached here will be subject to a national referendum.  We are tasked with conveying our people’s desires, not with determining their destiny; those who want to listen to the will of the Syrian people should not appoint themselves as their spokesperson.  Syrians alone have the right to choose their government, their parliament and their constitution; everything else is just talk and has no significance.

Finally, to all those here and everyone watching around the world: in Syria we are fighting terrorism, terrorism which has destroyed and continues to destroy; terrorism which since the 1980’s Syria has been calling, on deaf ears, for a unified front to defeat it.  Terrorism has struck in America, France, Britain, Russia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan; the list goes on and it continues to spread.  Let us all cooperate to fight it, let’s work hand in hand to stop its black, horrifying and obscurantist ideology.  Then, let us as Syrians stand united to focus on Syria and start rebuilding its social fabric and material structures.  As I said, dialogue is the foundation to this process, and despite our gratitude to the host country, we affirm that the real dialogue between Syrians should in fact be on Syrian soil and under Syrian skies.  Exactly one year ago, the Syrian government put forward its vision for a political solution; think of how much innocent blood we would have saved had some countries resorted to reason instead of terrorism and destruction.  For a whole year, we have been calling for dialogue, but terrorism continued to strike at the Syrian state, her people and institutions.

Today, in this gathering of Arab and Western powers, we are presented with a simple choice: we can choose to fight terrorism and extremism together and to start a new political process, or you can continue to support terrorism in Syria.  Let us reject and isolate the black hands and the false faces, which publicly smile but covertly feed terrorist ideology, striking Syria today, but ultimately spreading to infect us all.  This is the moment of truth and destiny; let us rise to the challenge.

Thank you."

Later, Minister al-Moallem said, "The orchestra that we have heard from some sides today and the content of some hostile speeches from some states, to the extent that in some minutes we seemed to have heard old rhetoric with no difference except for the place of delivering them, do not deserve to be answered."

Concluding the second session of the conference, al-Moallem added, "Because we want to stop bloodshed in Syria, to protect the lives of citizens, to build Syria again and because, as a state, we play our constitutional, political, security and social role to save Syria from what is going on, we are here and we hope the Geneva conference will be a first step on the way to start Syrian-Syrian dialogue on the Syrian territories."

"I thank those who have stood by us from the friendly countries for three years so far and we say to all that we will continue hitting terrorism wherever it was with one hand and we will build Syria democratically, politically and socially with the other," al-Moallem said.

Minister al-Moallem added, "I say to those who are interfering in the Syrian affairs through any sort of interference: three years and you are still trying; have you not become desperate yet? …  Enough! … Put your hands off Syria so that we can indeed achieve the people's aspirations of a secure and developed life."

Ginebra Dos

Una nota de Thierry Meyssan para Red Voltaire (sección «Ante Nuestros Ojos») comenta los preparativos de la próxima conferencia de paz para Siria. Como siempre, el tipo habla claro. Veámosla. 

Título: Preparando Ginebra 2

Epígrafe: Los últimos días de una guerra son siempre los más sangrientos. Los ejércitos derrotados suelen vengarse cometiendo atrocidades inútiles, como acabamos de verlo en Adra, donde las torturas infligidas a los trabajadores leales al gobierno nada tienen que envidiar a las atrocidades cometidas durante la retirada del III Reich. Pero la situación es muy complicada por causa de la desbandada de los restos de la coalición internacional antisiria, en la que cada componente trata de salvarse a expensas de sus antiguos aliados.

Texto: "En vísperas de la conferencia Ginebra 2, lo que quedaba de la coalición internacional antisiria está volando en pedazos mientras que los Estados seguidores de Rusia o de Estados Unidos comienzan a posicionarse con vista a la reconstrucción.

La primera cuestión es la de la representatividad de la delegación de la «oposición siria». Hasta hace poco el problema era saber si esa delegación saldría del seno de la Coalición Nacional de Estambul y/o de la oposición nacionalista interna y externa que se pronunció contra la injerencia extranjera. Pero ahora hay que determinar también si la Coalición Nacional representa los intereses de Arabia Saudita, de Qatar o de Turquía.

En el terreno, los tres financistas de la guerra se han separado y están librando una batalla campal entre sí, al extremo de que ya ni siquiera se ocupan de tratar de derrocar el gobierno que querían destruir. Aunque aún se habla un poco del Ejército Sirio Libre, lo cierto es que este ha desaparecido del terreno. Así que los que quedan son el Frente Islámico (recientemente creado por el príncipe Bandar Ben Sultán), el Frente al-Nusra (que sigue vinculado a Qatar) y el Emirato Islámico de Irak y el Levante (EIIL o «Daesh» en árabe), que por cierto recibía financiamiento ilegal de Recep Tayyip Erdo?an, como lo acaban de demostrar la policía y la justicia turcas.

En un primer momento, el EIIL (o sea Turquía y por ende la OTAN) atacó el cuartel general del Ejército Sirio Libre (ESL) y lo saqueó. Los comandantes del ESL huyeron a Qatar y Europa pero el príncipe Bandar Ben Sultán logró recuperar unos cuantos, los puso al frente de nuevos mercenarios y creó con ellos el Frente Islámico. Después, el EIIL recibió órdenes de mover el grueso de sus fuerzas hacia Irak, donde tomó Ramadi y Faluya. Mientras tanto, las demás fuerzas, empezando por el Ejército Árabe Sirio, ocupan el espacio así abandonado en Siria.

Según la prensa atlantista y los medios de los países del Golfo, los «rebeldes» se aliaron a los «leales» en contra de los «yihadistas» y lo que estamos viendo ahora es una «segunda revolución siria». La ventaja de esa romántica descripción es que permite cerrar el capítulo de la «primera revolución» sin que el público se pregunte cuál fue su resultado. La realidad es que no hubo primera revolución y que ahora tampoco la habrá.

La prensa occidental tampoco parece interesada en saber por qué al-Qaeda, eterno auxiliar de la OTAN, ha recibido ahora instrucciones de abandonar el campo de batalla sirio y de irse a Irak. Ese movimiento presenta 3 ventajas para Washington: primeramente, debe concluir con un triunfo para el presidente Nuri al-Maliki y con la estabilización provisional de Irak, reducirá la cantidad de yihadistas –llamados a sufrir grandes pérdidas ante un ejército fresco y armado hasta los dientes– y de paso elimina un actor que resultaba impresentable en la conferencia Ginebra 2.

Al mismo tiempo, la OTAN proporcionó al Ejército Libanés la información necesaria para proceder a la captura del jefe de las Brigadas Abdallah Azzam, Majed al-Majed. Arrestado cuando una ambulancia lo trasladaba del hospital hacia su cuartel general, al-Majed murió oficialmente 10 días después como resultado de sus heridas. Lo más probable es que lo hayan liquidado los sauditas, temerosos por las revelaciones que hubiese podido hacer.

Si todo hubiese funcionado según lo previsto, hoy sólo quedaría en el terreno el Frente al-Nusra, lo cual habría reducido definitivamente las pretensiones de la Coalición Nacional. Pero el empecinamiento de Arabia Saudita ha dado lugar a la aparición del Frente Islámico, que pretende influir en el resultado de Ginebra 2.

Si no aparece Israel en la explosión de la coalición antisiria es porque, ateniéndose a la estrategia que ha venido siguiendo desde hace 10 años, Tel Aviv se esconde detrás de sus aliados –en este caso, Francia y Arabia Saudita. La administración Netanyahu se manifiesta únicamente cuando hace falta socorrer a los Contras con su aviación o facilitándoles una posición de repliegue en el Golán, región que Israel sigue ocupando ilegalmente. Por desgracia para él, Netanyahu no ha podido intervenir en las últimas semanas porque los principales combates se han desarrollado en el norte de Siria.

Mientras tanto, las delegaciones de los Estados que tuvieron la prudencia de retirarse del conflicto o que han respaldado a Siria esperan que Ginebra 2 les traiga algo de agradecimiento. Una veintena de esos Estados esperan obtener contratos de reconstrucción financiados por las organizaciones intergubernamentales.

Ya es evidente que Arabia Saudita y Francia serán los grandes perdedores de Ginebra 2, con más posibilidades de tener que pagar que de recibir algo. El presidente francés Francois Hollande no parece preocupado por eso en la medida en que ha cumplido su misión al servicio de Israel y ve las consecuencias para su propio país sólo como algo secundario.

Por su parte, el rey Abdallah de Arabia Saudita se empeña en obtener un premio de consolación en Líbano. En ese contexto, la mayoría libanesa aceptaría la nominación de un gobierno minoritario cuya única función será aprobar la donación saudita de 3 000 millones de dólares en armamento francés. Después de eso, el nuevo gobierno libanés sería derrocado por el parlamento y el país volvería a la actual situación de inestabilidad y estancamiento.

La delegación gubernamental siria aborda la conferencia con optimismo. Las fuerzas de la oposición están a la desbandada a raíz de la desaparición del ESL y de la retirada masiva del EIIL. La principal preocupación de Damasco parece consistir en este momento en preparar las bagatelas que presentará a sus interlocutores para que puedan disimular la derrota que acaban de sufrir y celebrar la victoria del consenso y del interés general. Damasco planea para ello crear ministerios temporales que se encargarían de manejar las relaciones con los ex enemigos –ya convertidos en generosos donantes–, ministerios que pondría en manos de los ex empleados de esos mismos ex enemigos. La Coalición Nacional tendría así aunque sea una utilidad, adquirida gracias a su pasada traición.”

Los eternos auxiliares

Yasin al-Qadi, el banquero de al-Qaeda

Notable nota de Thierry Meyssan para Red Voltaire. Vamos derecho a la misma. 

Título: Al-Qaeda, eterno auxiliar de la OTAN

Epígrafe: La revelación de los lazos del primer ministro Recep Tayyip Erdogan con al-Qaeda está provocando un verdadero terremoto político en Turquía. No sólo Ankara respaldaba muy activamente el terrorismo en Siria sino que además lo hacía en el marco de una estrategia de la OTAN. Para Thierry Meyssan, el escándalo muestra también el carácter completamente ficticio de los grupos armados que agreden al Estado y el pueblo sirios.

Texto: Hasta este momento, las autoridades de los Estados miembros de la OTAN afirman que la corriente yihadista internacional que ellas mismas respaldaron desde el inicio de su formación –durante la guerra contra los soviéticos en Afganistán (en 1979)– se volvió contra ellas en el momento de la liberación de Kuwait (en 1991). Los miembros de la alianza atlántica acusan a al-Qaeda de haber atacado las embajadas de Estados Unidos en Kenya y Tanzania (en 1998) y de haber orquestado los atentados del 11 de septiembre (en 2001), pero reconocen que después de la muerte oficial de Osama ben Laden (en 2011) algunos elementos yihadistas colaboraron nuevamente con ellos en Libia y en Siria. Sin embargo, sostienen que Washington puso fin a ese acercamiento en diciembre de 2012.

Los hechos desmienten esa versión. Al-Qaeda luchó siempre contra los mismos enemigos que la OTAN. Así lo revela nuevamente el escándalo que hoy sacude Turquía.

Ahora nos enteramos de que Yasin al-Qadi –el hombre abiertamente señalado como el banquero de al-Qaeda y por lo tanto buscado por Estados Unidos desde los atentados contra las embajadas estadounidenses en Kenya y Tanzania (en 1998)– era amigo personal tanto del ex vicepresidente de Estados Unidos Dick Cheney como del actual primer ministro de Turquía Recep Tayyib Erdogan. Ahora se descubre también que ese «terrorista» vivía a todo lujo y que incluso viajaba en un jet privado, mofándose así de las sanciones que la ONU había adoptado contra él. Así visitó a Erdogan en Turquía, al menos 4 veces en 2012, llegando a ese país a través del segundo aeropuerto de Estambul, donde –luego de haberse desconectado previamente las cámaras de seguridad de la instalación– este personaje era recibido por el jefe de la guardia personal del primer ministro turco, quien lo introducía en el territorio nacional sin pasar por la aduana.

Según los policías y magistrados turcos que dieron a conocer esos hechos y que detuvieron a los hijos de varios ministros implicados en el escándalo el 17 de diciembre de 2013 antes de verse separados de la investigación e incluso de sus funciones por orden del primer ministro, Yasin al-Qadi y Recep Tayyip Erdogan habían montado un amplio sistema de malversación de fondos para financiar a al-Qaeda en Siria.

En el momento mismo en que salía a la luz este increíble doble juego, la gendarmería turca interceptó cerca de la frontera siria un camión cargado de armas destinadas a al-Qaeda. Una de las tres personas detenidas declaró que transportaba un cargamento de la IHH, la asociación «humanitaria» de la Hermandad Musulmana turca y otra dijo ser un agente secreto en pleno cumplimiento de su misión. En definitiva, el gobernador acabó prohibiendo a la policía que hiciera su trabajo, confirmó que el envío del cargamento de armas era una operación secreta del MIT (los servicios secretos de Turquía) y ordenó que el camión siguiera su camino… con su cargamento de armas.

La investigación muestra también que el financiamiento turco para al-Qaeda transitaba a través de una vía iraní, tanto para disponer así de una excelente cobertura en Siria como para realizar operaciones terroristas en Irán. La OTAN ya tenía cómplices en Teherán en tiempos de la operación «Irán-Contras» [también conocida como «Irángate»], y esos cómplices se movían entre las personas cercanas al ex presidente Rafsandjani, como el actual presidente Hassan Rohani.

Esos hechos se producen en momentos en que la oposición política siria en el exilio trata de probar suerte con una nueva teoría en vísperas de la conferencia Ginebra 2. Según esa teoría, el Frente al-Nusra y el Emirato Islámico en Irak y el Levante (EIIL) no serían otra cosa que agentes de los servicios secretos sirios encargados de asustar a la población para que esta se incline a favor del régimen. Así que la única oposición armada válida sería entonces la del Ejército Sirio Libre (ESL), que a su vez reconoce la autoridad de la oposición externa, lo cual resolvería el problema de representatividad que se plantea con vista a la conferencia de paz,

Así que nos van a pedir que nos olvidemos de todos los elogios que la misma oposición siria en el exterior había venido prodigando a al-Qaeda desde hace 3 años. Y también del escandaloso silencio de los Estados miembros de la OTAN sobre la generalización del terrorismo en Siria.

Sin embargo, si es posible admitir que la mayoría de los dirigentes de la alianza atlántica nada sabían del apoyo que esa organización aportaba al terrorismo internacional, habrá que admitir también que la OTAN es el principal responsable mundial del terrorismo."