Sunday, April 15, 2012

"UN concessions show Russia's clout" Perhaps?

Globe and Mail

Perhaps it was Russia's 'clout' ? However, I have my doubts. The inordinate amount of attention given to Russia's role in obstructing the imperialist agenda of the West is, in my opinion, part of an agenda to demonize Russia via the msm.

China has had the same view on the Syrian Crisis.

 China and Russia – both permanent members on the Council -- joined the other 13 Council members and voted in favour of Resolution 2042. The two nations vetoed twice -- in October and in February – resolutions on Syria, stating they supported to solve the Syria crisis through international dialogue instead of "regime change".

Why the focus on Russia?
I have been guilty of the Russia centric focus here on the blog,  because I derive most of the info used  from the msm. This creates a perceptual  imbalance which should be kept in check, even by me!
Therefore I am mentioning that  China and Russia both wielded Veto's previously. China and Russia both approved the Anan Peace Plan.
Is this a rehash of the 'cold war' style propaganda?

From G & M

A small contingent of six United Nations observers are due to arrive Sunday evening in Damascus and be on the street Monday, paving the way for as many as 30 observers this week to verify if both sides in Syria’s civil conflict are abiding by a ceasefire that went into effect Thursday.

The deployment of observers had been held back after a disagreement emerged Friday between the United States, Britain and France on the one hand and Russia on the other.
While all parties agreed on the need to speedily deploy observers in the hope of prodding both sides in Syria to observe the ceasefire and to move quickly to a political process, Russia balked at some of the language the United States had added to a draft resolution on deploying the observers.

Vitaly Churkin, Russia’s United Nations ambassador, said Moscow objected to the one-sided nature of the U.S. resolution that blamed only the Syrian government for the conflict and threatened punishment for its crimes. Russia also objected to the fact that the resolution included the deployment of a full contingent of some 250-300 observers, and that Syria was required to give the force complete freedom of action inside Syria.
Moscow wanted the resolution to pin responsibility for the conflict on both the regime and armed elements of the opposition, and it wanted the resolution to apply only to the advance team of some 30 UN observers. The balance of the observers and the terms of their deployment should be subject to Syrian agreement, (Russian and Chinese observers, perhaps?) Mr. Churkin says.
And Russia (and China, perhaps India? ) got exactly what it wanted.

The resolution adopted unanimously Saturday morning by the 15-member UN Security Council, applies only to the advance group of observers, blames both sides for the country’s violence, and pledges that the terms of any further observer forces’ deployment would be agreed on only after consultations between Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and the Syrian government.

The concessions show just how much the United States and its allies have come to accept that Russia is crucial to finding a political solution to the bloody mess in Syria.
The Security Council resolution calls on both sides to “cease all armed violence in all its forms” and condemns “the widespread violations of human rights by the Syrian authorities, as well as any human rights abuses by armed groups.”
This is more balanced, said Mr. Churkin, who explained Moscow was acting “out of respect for the sovereignty of Syria.”
“Out of respect for the sovereignty of Syria we have cautioned against destructive attempts at external interference or imposing any kind of illusory fixes,” he said.



    13 April 2012 12:47AM
    This Annan plan is a cruel hoax. By failing to identify all the players in this conflict, it's absurd to believe an end to hostilities can be achieved. Why no insistence that Turkey refrain from arming the rebels? Why no insistence that UK, US, French, German and Israeli special forces leave Syria? And why no outcry from the UN - this is after all in violation of international law, because these are foreign forces on Syrian soil.
    Why no insistence that the Gulf states refrain from paying the rebels? The House of Saud and Qatar have institutionalised that motley crew known as the Free Syrian Army as a mercenary outfit; they are now on their payroll, to the tune of $100 million (and counting). Isn't democracy wonderful - when US-allied Persian Gulf monarchies can buy a mercenary army for peanuts? Isn't it great to be a revolutionary with an assured paycheque? Just like in Iraq and Afghanistan, the war powers of the west have been privatised.
    As Patrick Henningsen points out, "if Obama was faced with this situation, to have US militias armed and being aided by the Chinese, Canadians or the Mexicans and terrorising cities in the US, you'd better believe that the US Federal Government would give two fingers up to the United Nations and tell them 'stay out of our business because we have a domestic insurgency problem which we need to put down in order to bring stability to our state' - why isn't Syria viewed this way?"

  2. I find the focus on Russia important and enlightening and actually key for figuring out world politics/power in the future.

    This situation reminds me exactly of the U.S. debate over health care a few years ago and the passage of Obamacare.

    Obama had a mandate from the Democratic primaries, as well as the general election, to enact liberal health care reform. The people wildly loved the single payer option of Medicare, and Obama himself said he favored this.

    But once in power, Obama quickly made a secret deal with the pharmaceutical and health insurance companies. He lied to everyone and pretended that he was going to fight for a "public option", however loosely defined it was.

    Obama chose a long and painfully drawn out process to force his predetermined policy through. The whole time he pretended he was for something he already ruled out! He encouraged people to have hope and faith in him, and liberals spend an amazing amount of energy trying to 'make him do it.' They got suckered. Obama played them. Their investment in their process ended up trapping them and making it harder to reverse course.

    The Progressive Caucus, the biggest force in Congress at that time, had at one point promised to vote against any bill that didn't at least have a public option (even though this was never substantively defined). They all broke this pledge, including Kucinich. Kucinich and other progressives switched from saying Obamacare was a corporate giveaway they couldn't support, to the next day supporting it and pillorying anyone that dared protest from the left.

    This is what's happening with respect to Russia and Syria. Russia is the Democrats. Those that want to stop an unjust attack on Syria are the hopeful progressives.

    And this whole process is an Obama special. Months of excruciating debate, and everyone wondering when this imminent attack is going to occur, then finally being relieved when it happens. It's classic Obama mindfucking (and it's a tactic he learned from his jedi masters, no doubt).

  3. I think this is one оf the so much significаnt
    іnformаtion for me. And i'm glad studying your article. But wanna statement on some basic things, The website style is great, the articles is truly nice : D. Just right task, cheers
    my webpage :: forestry bucket trucks

  4. Greetіngs frοm Carolina! Ӏ'm bored at work so I decided to browse your site on my iphone during lunch break. I love the knowledge you provide here and can't ωait to tаκе a
    lοok when I get home. I'm surprised at how fast your blog loaded on my mobile .. I'm
    nоt even using WΙFΙ, ϳust 3G .. Anywaуs,
    аwеsome blog!

    Here is my web page :