Al-Jaafari calls UN General Assembly Resolution on Syria Hysteric and Misleading.
By Christof Lehmann – nsnbc. – Syria’s Ambassador to the United Nations, Bashar al-Jaafari responded to the General Assembly´s Resolution on Syria by calling it hysteric and misleading. The draft resolution that had been submitted to the UN General Assembly had been drafted mainly by Saudi Arabia and Qatar, two nations who admittedly are sponsoring the so-called Free Syrian Army and a variety of terrorist organizations with ties to Salafist extremists, Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood. Al-Jaafari deconstructs the resolution as another pretext for an illegal intervention. The resolution may in fact be the final death sentence for the UN as a remotely legally functioning international body.
Hysteric and Misleading
Besides calling the resolution for hysteric and misleading, al-Jaafari stressed, that it has no international legitimacy and violates Syrian national sovereignty and the principle of non interference into domestic affairs. He further emphasized that the main beneficiary of the resolution was Israel.
Aggravating Violence by Encouraging Terrorism. Risk of Blow-Backs.
Al-Jaafari also warned, that the adoption of the draft resolution is sending a wrong message to extremists and terrorists in Syria and elsewhere. The resolution will send the signal that acts of terrorism are a viable alternative to dialog and a peaceful political settlement of disputes. He continued by reiteratin that these terrorist acts were being encouraged and supported by UN member States, whose support of terrorism exacerbates the situation, increases the violence, and strengthens terrorism in Syria.
Al-Jaafari predicted, that this policy of state-sponsored terrorism would eventually result in a blow-back in those countries who are sponsoring terrorism in Syria, including those nations who had adopted the resolution.
Irony of Making Use of Article 34 for the Prevention of Armed Conflicts.
Al-Jaafari pointed towards the inherent irony of the fact that the resolution was presented by nations who massively support the terrorists inside Syria while presenting the resolution under article 34, which is dealing with the prevention of armed conflicts. Those countries who sponsored the resolution, so Al-Jaafari, have a considerable part in the militarization of the situation in Syria and in preventing a peaceful settlement.
Al-Jaafari is not relying on Syrian information alone, but referring to the fact that the Minister of Foreign Affairs of France, only three days ago, admitted that both Qatar and Saudi Arabia are delivering weapons to insurgents, while some Western Media outlets had confirmed that US anti-aircraft Stinger missiles had been delivered to insurgents via Turkey.
The Syrian UN Ambassador furthermore stated that some of the nations who had sponsored the resolution are leading a hysterical political, media and intelligence campaign against Syria, while funding and arming terrorist groups rather than a peaceful and honest political opposition in Syria. It should be emphasized that Al-Jaafari most probably did not had the intention to endorse Western manufactured and equally illegal “Color of Flower Revolutions” when making that statement.
Al-Jaafari reiterated that Syria has consistently been and is committed to the Arab-League´s and UN Six Point Plan, but that the fact that some of those countries who are blaming Syria for violating it are providing media, political, monetary and military support to terrorists in Syria while imposing unilateral sanctions on the country pose an injustice on the people of Syria while exacerbating the humanitarian situation.
Hypocrisy of Gulf Arabs Dictatorships – Human Rights Records and Tyranny.
Al-Jaafari stated, that were those nations who are at the forefront of voicing humanitarian concerns were honest, they would have allocated the billions of US-Dollars that have been spent on arming and equipping terrorists on humanitarian aid.
Much in the spirit of Russian President Vladimir Putin´s speech at the International Security Conference in Munich, 2007, where Putin stated that those who were preaching democracy to Russia were not exactly good examples of adhering to democratic principles themselves, Al-Jaafari drew attention to the fact that some of the main sponsors of the resolution, first and foremost Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Bahrain were neither respecting democracy nor human rights. He described the countries as being governed by oligarchic, tyrannical regimes that don´t hesitate to suppress their people and murder protesters. Their records with concerns to human rights and basic liberties is considered and documented to be among the worst in the world.
Parallels to Iraq and Libya.
Al-Jaafari called the resolution one about many of such resolutions that had been crafted and designed with the specific purpose to suit foreign interests and to permit them to partake in a military intervention in other countries. The pretexts are disarming supposed weapons of mass destruction, protecting civilian lives and human rights, and other noble principles which never had been the true motivations but rather slogans, employed to interfere into other countries affairs, to topple governments and to plunge countries into chaos, civil war and sectarian infighting.
UN – Believable Audacity May Spell End of UN.
The sheer unbelievable audacity of the NATO/GCC/Israeli Alliance abuse of the United Nations for manufacturing an apparently legal basis for yet another illegal modo-colonial war of aggression can not other than have grave and long lasting consequences with respect to global security.
One can discuss whether a post-world war two institution such as the Security Council is still justified today and in deed that discussion is long over due. This discussion can, however, not yield constructive results without taking into account that a democratization of international decision-making processes with respect to settling disputes can not be dependent on a so-called democracy that has primacy over international law and a so-called democratization of the UN when resolutions that are inherently opposed to the principles of the UN Charter are brought about by majorities that are being manufactured by diplomatic, political and other forms of pressure.
In fact, the resolution on Syria may be the final evidence for the fact that an alternative alley towards the establishment of an international community of independent states ought to be pursued. As it stand, what the UN stands for today is:
UN-Believable Audacity in manufacturing apparently legal pretexts for wars of aggression.
UN-Believable Audacity in the manufacturing of political show trials, victors justice and revenge rather than legality at the ICC.
UN-Bearable Silence with respect to Palestine.
UN-Ending Chain of the most severe crimes recognized by humanity under the pretext of the Responsibility to Protect, Human Rights, Conflict Resolution, Justice, and Peace.
The list of nations who voted in favor or against who abstained and who were absent is representative for the United States race for global, full spectrum dominance beginning to meet resistance. Even though the situation in Syria was solved peacefully, it would be highly unlikely that the United Nation could be internally reformed in a sufficient degree to be truly representative and truly a manifestation and guardian of international law.
The world is experiencing the decline of a post world war two giant on clay feet. A house of cards that has been abused as much as it has been used is falling apart. The ones that risk to be suffocated and crushed by the crumbling walls are the people of Syria, peace and legal principles that have been established and paid for in blood over centuries.
Before circumstance is UN-Doing the UN in a disaster, it might be pertinent to UN-Do the UN and find new alleys that are truly functional with respect to the principles the UN claims to represent. The world needs an extraordinary and new approach and is in dire need for extraordinary political leadership and integrity. To begin with, bilateral and multilateral agreements to arrest and try war criminals under a new principle of international jurisdiction would be appropriate and make the world an uneasy traveling experience for war criminals. Including those from NATO member states.