By Dmitriy Sedov – Strategic Culture Foundation
In his time then Prime Minister of Great Britain Winston Churchill proved the fact that a gap between a public politician and a public call girl could be narrowed to minimum. Winston himself often deserted one party for another watching how the wind was blowing and trusting his own feelings. He was no less consistent in foreign policy. France will always be grateful to him for its navy destruction in 1940. Britain and France were bound by a military alliance treaty, but private interests stood above all.
On June 3 1940 a British armada under the command of Admiral Sommerville neared stealthily the Algerian port of Mers-el-Kebir and bloodshed followed. Three battleships, a lot of ships of lesser size, hundreds of sailors went to the bottom. On June 6 the Richelieu, a battleship of the French Navy, was attacked and damaged in the roadstead of Dakar. As a result the French navy ceased to exist. 130 French sailors lost lives. Why? Because France signed the capitulation in Compiegne and the ships could join the German navy. The Vichy government had no intention to turn them in to Germany, it intended to sink them in the last resort but these were details. Winston took the decision.
It must be noted the operation ran smoothly. «I am very sorry», – Admiral Sommerville wired to the sinking French ships before leaving. A real gentleman.
The Russians have something to remember him for too. The Churchill’s Fulton speech – a pile of lies about the aggressiveness of the USSR – became a prologue to the “Cold war” that exhausted the Soviet economy.
The spiritual successors of Churchill appear to never leave the Western political kitchen. Their motto is – play a dirty trick and do it as elegantly as you can. That’s what brings indefatigable UN Secretary Ban Ki-moon into the focus of international observers attention more and more often. Just recently speaking at the final 2011 results wrap up press conference he surprised the audience with his eloquence praising those who bombed Libya.
The Churchill’s spirit was there in his speeches, as he turned a blind eye on NATO’s taking sides in the Libyan intestine strife. But the main thing is to preserve elegance. To smile and bow when the time is right.
Now Ban Ki-moon turned to Syria. The Winston’s shadow is behind his back again. It’s not worth to list all accusations addressed to the president of Syria president Assad, they all come from the ideological pottage boiling in the NATO’s kitchen. The main idea is that Assad is an enemy of Syrian people and the whole human kind. He should be dealt with. And elegance shouldn’t be forgotten. Not a word about an armed intervention.
At the same time the Secretary General pays no attention whatsoever on the Syrian armed opposition. Is he not the one who should make clear what its numbers are, where arms and other supplies come from etc? It’s the chimera of “Free Syrian army” and opposition’s political council that are constantly mentioned in the media. But it’s well armed formations able to counter the Syrian regular army who fight the country’s legitimate government. Why the Secretary General has no wish to know who these people are and what they want? Perhaps it’s because Mr. Rasmussen has already told him whispering in the ear? The conspiracy of silence concerning estimates of real strength of Syrian militants is an amazing mystery of Western media activities. Ban Ki-moon appears to be one of the creators of the mystery. Perhaps we will get another prove of it soon at the UN General Assembly session devoted to the situation in Syria.
The activities of the body responsible for providing the Secretary General with information on Syria raise questions too. It’s the “Syrian Observatory for Human Rights” in Syria, based in London – an office that has no relation whatsoever to the United Nations with funds coming from secret sources. It’s not accessible. Perhaps the “Observatory” is afraid of Syrian special services and is hidden in an area guarded by someone. And the data concocted by the guarded experts located thousands of kilometers from Syria becomes “official data of the United Nations ” by the will of Mr. Ban Ki-moon.
It’s all done in respectable and elegant way, isn’t it, gentlemen from the SIS?
What about the resignation of Mohamed al-Dhabi, head of Arab League monitoring mission in Syria? Can the story be ignored? The General resigned because his report didn’t meet the expectations of the Arab League leaders. They spared no effort to make cuts in the report and send it to the UN in truncated form. Mr. Ban Ki-moon knew well about it. Still he met the General Mohamed al-Dhabi’s resignation with usual smile.
In response to the resignation the NATO’s ideological pottage started to boil producing new information bubbles: the assignment of the Sudanese General with rich intelligence experience to the position of head of observers mission was a mistake because he was a representative of the old regime and took part in suppressing the democratic movement in Darfur.
Here is a choice – one can laugh or cry. Just recently the Western media published reports about the atrocities committed by the Darfur separatists, how could one guess then that the very same outlets would picture one of the separatism fighters as a villain.
Ban Ki-moon didn’t meet General al-Ghabi but he did hold another meeting with Mr. Rasmussen. Nice try too. The two Secretaries General have an agenda for discussions.
It may take a long time to describe the dishonorable and not very elegant policy of Ban Ki-moon. The question arises: once the UN Secretary General joined the ranks of NATO’s mercenaries what the international community would need him for?