What does the consensus on Guterres as a Secretary-General of the United Nations mean? ماذا يعني الإجماع على غوتيريس أميناً عاماً للأمم المتحدة؟

Written by Nasser Kandil,

The end of the mandate of the current Secretary-General of the United Nations comes in conjunction with a set of developments that make the occasion of choosing an alternative a political global event from the first grade. The foreign policy of each of the great countries America and Russia has witnessed fundamental changes as the world witnesses articulated conflicts. In both fields the Russian American consensus on a specific name towards having the consensus in the Security Council has meanings and perspectives that are beyond just simplifying the work process and facilitating filling a vacancy.

During the mandate of the current Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, Washington has dismounted in the era of George W. Bash’s wars and the neo- conservatives from the horse of its Defense Minister Donald Rumsfeld who has launched the theory of the end of the need for the International organization, because Bush’s administration felt, and then the administration of the President Barack Obama of the need to activate the role of the United Nations either in covering and legitimizing its occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, or by giving the cover of the war on Libya, which the staff of Obama’s administration recognizes  that it was a condition to promote the intervention there according to the US public opinion. But because of the lack of a similar cover for a military role in Syria due to the Russian and Chinese repetitive vetoes, Washington withdrew of the decision of the military intervention despite its conviction that there is no opportunity to present its project without it. With the US regression of having the ability of the uniqueness and surpassing the need for the United Nations, the world is witnessing now a growing rise of the Russian political and military role which puts the United Nations into an inclusive framework for the foreign policies, especially as a unified coverage for the war on terrorism to prevent the US discretion in using this pretext to impose special interests and considerations. Moscow puts its importance to make the United Nations a platform for the negotiation and an institution for making settlements and applying them in the conflict areas. It became evident that the containment of the Russian vital accelerated strong movement of reactors is impossible without a greater role of the United Nations that is accepted by Moscow.

The Portuguese Socialist Antonio Guterres who has chaired the government of his country for ten years represents a European figure close to Washington, he is quiet, educated and politically skilled, present, and initiator,  interested in the humanitarian affairs and spreading the culture of peace and negotiation, and an advocate of US Russian understanding that shades the movement of the United Nations to accelerate the resolution of the disputes by negotiation outside the standards, templates and theories that give the priority to the special goals of the parties, but for peace and the peaceful competition first, and then protecting the civilians in the conflicts.

Despite Moscow’s preference of the Bulgarian Irina Bokova the director of UNESCO whose her nomination has been fallen by US veto because she raised the flag of Palestine over the UNESCO, and because of her recognition of the Palestinian country, it accepted not to use veto against Guterres after Bulgaria has withdrawn the nomination of Bokova who probably will occupy the post of the Deputy Secretary-General within Russian understanding with Guterres, as it is probable that a Russian diplomat will occupy the post of the political aide instead of the US diplomat Jeffrey Feltman, and probably the Russian envoy in the United Nations will be Vitaly Churkin . Thus the Russian US consensus on a figure such as Guterres remindes us of a similar consensus on the arrival of the former Austrian Secretary-General Kurt Waldheim, through whom his era the International Organization has been characterized with vigor and vitality.

Any observer can wonder if the US Russian confrontation ranging as suggested by the media backgrounds, then is not the nomination of the new Secretary General suitable for the mutual messages at this level, since the time is good for resolving the name of the candidate till the end of the year, and it was possible going on in the confrontation till the last day, and the understanding on a marginal figure that represents a significant employee who has a rank of secretary-general and who can pay salaries and conducting the routine procedures of the international organization which will be at the sideline of the upcoming events of the confrontations between the two largest countries in the world where there is no ability for the United Nations to intervene in other conflicts without their approval?

Guterres goes ahead as a result of  Russian US consensus on his name ,as an authorization to him to apply his theory which based on the call for such a consensus in order to go on in the negotiation issues about the conflicts, and to take them to understandings that do not have the title of a Russian US understanding after it was clear to Washington its ability to pay the costs of applying these understandings with its allies, and it seemed that the support of Washington indirectly to an active qualified energetic secretary-general gives an image other than the silly image which Ban Ki Moon represented, this makes the opportunities of forming new equations less expensive. Washington which waged the rebellion against the United Nations considers this an opportunity to restrict the Russian rise through an active role of the United Nations that is accepted by Moscow, and considered it its goal. Washington withdraws and retrograded in order to support the claim of Moscow to do the same exactly as how Moscow did before.

The war in Syria and Yemen, the Palestinian Cause, the issues of the immigration and displacement are the centers of the tasks which are supposed to be the priorities of Guterres’s tasks. He is so committed to them, and has negotiating perceptions for their approaching that needs an understanding on a framework between Moscow and Washington, but he has the opportunity to do what is necessary freely to launch negotiations of several platforms for crises known and experienced by this new secretary-general who knows the red lines of the international balance which is drawn by the US-Russian relations, and which have granted him the opportunity of arriving to the first international position and to test the opportunities of peace which based on the negative balance which stems from Moscow’s rise and the retreat of Washington. The first test is the decision to visit Damascus.

Translated by Lina Shehadeh,

ماذا يعني الإجماع على غوتيريس أميناً عاماً للأمم المتحدة؟

ناصر قنديل
– تأتي نهاية ولاية الأمين العام الحالي للأمم المتحدة متزامنة مع جملة تطورات تجعل من مناسبة اختيار بديل عنه حدثاً عالمياً سياسياً من الطراز الأول، حيث شهدت السياسة الخارجية لكلّ من الدولتين العظميين أميركا وروسيا تغييرات جوهرية، كما يشهد العالم نزاعات مفصلية، وفي كلّ من المجالين يصير للتوافق الأميركي الروسي على اسم معيّن، وصولاً لنيله الإجماع في تسميته من مجلس الأمن معانٍ وأبعاد تتخطى مجرد تيسير العمل وتسهيل ملء شغور منصب.

– خلال ولاية الأمين العام الحالي بان كي مون ترجّلت واشنطن عن حصان وزير دفاعها في عهد حروب جورج بوش والمحافظين الجدد دونالد رامسفيلد الذي أطلق نظرية نهاية الحاجة للمنظمة الأممية، فقد شعرت إدارة بوش نفسها وبعدها إدارة الرئيس باراك أوباما بالحاجة لتفعيل دور الأمم المتحدة، سواء بتغطية وشرعنة احتلالها للعراق وأفغانستان، أو تالياً بمنح التغطية للحرب على ليبيا، التي يعترف أركان إدارة أوباما أنها كانت شرطاً لتسويق التدخل هناك لدى الرأي العام الأميركي، وأنه بسبب عدم الحصول على تغطية مماثلة لدور عسكري في سورية بسبب الفيتو الروسي والصيني المكرّر، تراجعت واشنطن دائماً عن قرار التدخل العسكري، رغم قناعتها بأنه لا فرص لتقدّم مشروعها بدونه، ومقابل التراجع الأميركي عن قدرة التفرّد وتخطي الحاجة للأمم المتحدة، يشهد العالم صعوداً متنامياً للدور الروسي السياسي والعسكري، والذي يضع الأمم المتحدة إطاراً جامعاً للسياسات الخارجية، وخصوصاً كمظلة موحدة للحرب على الإرهاب منعاً للاستنساب الأميركي في استخدام هذه الذريعة لفرض مصالح وحسابات خاصة. وتضع موسكو ثقلها لجعل الأمم المتحدة منبراً للتفاوض، ومؤسسة لصناعة التسويات وتطبيقها في مناطق النزاع، وصار واضحاً أنّ احتواء الحركة الروسية الحيوية والرشيقة والمتسارعة والقوية المفاعيل مستحيل بدون دور أشدّ حضوراً للأمم المتحدة ترتضيه موسكو.

– يمثل أنطونيو غوتيريس البرتغالي الاشتراكي الذي ترأس حكومة بلاده عشر سنوات، شخصية أوروبية قريبة من واشنطن، وهو شخص هادئ مثقف ومحنك سياسياً، وحاضر ومبادر، ومهتمّ بالشؤون الإنسانية ونشر ثقافة السلام والتفاوض، وداعية لتفاهم أميركي روسي يظلّل حركة الأمم المتحدة لتسريع فضّ النزاعات بالتفاوض، خارج معايير وقوالب ونظريات، تعطي الأولوية للأهداف الخاصة بالأطراف، بل للسلم والتنافس السلمي أولاً، وحماية المدنيين في النزاعات، ورغم تفضيل موسكو للبلغارية إيرينا بوكوفا مديرة اليونيسكو التي أسقط ترشيحها فيتو أميركي، بسبب رفعها علم فلسطين فوق اليونيسكو، واعترافها بالدولة الفلسطينية، قبلت موسكو عدم استخدام الفيتو ضدّ غوتيريس بعد سحب بلغاريا لترشيح بوكوفا، التي يرجح أنها ستحتلّ ضمن تفاهم روسي مع غوتيريس منصب نائب الأمين العام، كما يرجّح أن يتولى دبلوماسي روسي منصب المعاون السياسي بدلاً من الدبلوماسي الأميركي جيفري فيلتمان، يرجّح ان يكون المبعوث الروسي في الأمم المتحدة فيتالي تشوركين. وهكذا جاء التوافق الروسي الأميركي على شخص غوتيريس ليعيد إلى الذاكرة توافقاً مشابهاً على وصول الأمين العام الأسبق النمساوي كورت فالدهايم، الذي اتسمت المنظمة الدولية في عهده بالحيوية والنشاط.

– يستطيع المراقب أن يتساءل لو كانت المواجهة الروسية الأميركية محتدمة على ما توحي الأجواء الإعلامية وتذهب للمواجهة، أليست منصة تسمية الأمين العام الجديد مناسبة للرسائل المتبادلة على هذا الصعيد، والوقت يتسع لحسم الاسم المرشح حتى نهاية العام، وكان ممكناً تقاذف اللعبة حتى اليوم الأخير، والتفاهم ربما على شخصية هامشية تمثل موظفاً كبيراً برتبة أمين عام يتولى دفع الرواتب وتسيير البريد الروتيني للمنظمة الأممية، التي ستكون على هامش الأحداث المرتقبة بمواجهات بين أكبر دولتين في العالم، حيث لا قدرة للأمم المتحدة على التدخل في سائر النزاعات بدون توافقهما؟

– ينطلق غوتيريس من توافق روسي أميركي على اسمه، كتفويض له بتطبيق نظريته القائمة على الدعوة، لهذا التوافق، للسير بملفات التفاوض حول النزاعات وأخذها إلى تفاهمات لا تحمل عنوان تفاهم روسي أميركي بعدما تبيّن لواشنطن عجزها عن دفع فواتير تطبيق هذه التفاهمات مع حلفائها، وبدا أنّ دعم واشنطن من خلف الستار لأمين عام فاعل ونشيط ومؤهل، يعطي صورة غير الصورة البلهاء التي قدّمها بان كي مون، يجعل فرص الصياغات للمعادلات الجديدة أقلّ كلفة، وواشنطن التي خاضت التمرّد على الأمم المتحدة تعتبرها فرصة لتقييد الصعود الروسي بدور فاعل للأمم المتحدة، ترتضيه موسكو وتقول إنه هدفها، فتتراجع واشنطن لتنضوي تحت المظلة تدعيماً لمطالبة موسكو بفعل المثل، تماماً كما كانت تفعل موسكو.

– الحرب في سورية اليمن والقضية الفلسطينية، وقضايا اللجوء والنزوح، محاور المهام التي يفترض أن تشكل أولويات مهام غوتيريس. وهو ملمّ بها جيداً ويملك تصورات تفاوضية لمقاربتها، تحتاج تفاهماً على إطار بين موسكو وواشنطن يترك له فرصة القيام بما يلزم بمرونة كافية، لإطلاق صفارة مفاوضات متعددة المنصات لأزمات يعرفها ويعايشها الأمين العام الجديد ويعرف الخطوط الحمراء للتوازن الدولي الذي ترسمه العلاقات الأميركية الروسية، التي وفّرت له فرصة الوصول للمنصب الأممي الأول واختبار فرص السلام القائم على التوازن السلبي الناتج عن صعود موسكو وتراجع واشنطن، وأول الاختبارات سيكون قراره بزيارة دمشق.

Ban Ki-Moon will be remembered for his total failure to enforce International Law against israel

Ban Ki-Moon’s Legacy in Palestine

He’s done nothing for Israel’s victims, says Ramzy Baroud

Ban Ki-Moon’s second term as the Secretary General of the United Nations is ending this December. He was the most ideal man for the job as far as the United States and its allies are concerned.

Of course, there will always be other Ban Ki-Moons. In fact, the man himself was a modified version of his predecessor, Kofi Annan.

The unspoken, but unmistakable rule about UN Secretary Generals is that they must come across as affable enough so as not to be the cause of international controversies, but also flexible enough to accommodate the US disproportionate influence over the United Nations, particularly the Security Council.

At the end of their terms, the ‘success’ or ‘failure’ of these Secretaries has been largely determined by their willingness to play by the aforementioned rule: Boutros Boutros-Ghali had his fallout with the US, as Kurt Waldheim also did. But both Annan and Ban learned their lessons well and followed the script to the end of their terms.

It would be utterly unfair to pin the blame for the UN’s unmitigated failure to solve world conflicts or obtain any real global achievement on a single individual. But Ban was particularly ‘good’ at this job. It would be quite a challenge to produce another with his exact qualities.

His admonishment of Israel, for example, can come across as strong-worded and makes for a good media quote, yet his inaction to confront Israel’s illegal violations of numerous Resolutions passed by the very UN he headed, is unmatched.

Even his purportedly strong words of censure were often cleverly coded, which, ultimately, meant very little.

When Israel carried out its longest and most devastating war on Gaza in the summer of 2014, a large number of international law experts and civil society organizations signed a letter accusing the UN chief of failing to clearly condemn Israel’s unlawful action in the Occupied Territories, its targeting of civilian homes, and even the bombing of UN facilities, which killed and wounded hundreds.

The signatories included former UN Special Rapporteur, Richard Falk, who, along with the others, called on Ban to either stand for justice or resign. He did neither.

The signatories criticized him, specifically, about Israeli shelling of a school managed by the UN agency for Palestinian refugees (UNRWA), in which ten civilians were killed.

In his ‘condemnation’ of the Israeli attack earlier, Ban even failed to mention Israel by name as the attacker, and called on ‘both parties’ to provide protection for Palestinian civilians and UN staff.

“Your statements have been either misleading, because they endorse and further Israeli false versions of facts, or contrary to the provisions established by international law and to the interests of its defenders, or because your words justify Israel’s violations and crimes,” they wrote.

And they were right. This is Ban Ki-Moon’s signature policy – his ability to sidestep having to criticize Israel so cleverly (and, of course, the US and others) when that criticism could have, when needed most, at least given a pause to those who violate international law at will.

Considering this, many have perceived Ban’s farewell speech at the 71st session of the UN General Assembly on September 15 as a departure from his old reserved self. It was understood that it was the end of his term, and he was ready to show some backbone, however belatedly. Sadly, this was not the case.

“It pains me that this past decade has been lost to peace. Ten years lost to illegal settlement expansion. Ten years lost to intra-Palestinian divide, growing polarization and hopelessness,” he surmised, as if both parties – the occupied and the military occupier – were equally responsible for the bloodshed and that Palestinians are equally blamed for their own military Occupation by Israel.

“This is madness,” he exclaimed. “Replacing a two-state solution with a one-state construct would spell doom: denying Palestinians their freedom and rightful future, and pushing Israel further from its vision of a Jewish democracy towards greater global isolation.”

But again, no solid commitment either way. Who is ‘replacing a two-state solution?’ and why would a ‘one state reality’ – which incidentally happened to be the most humane and logical solution to the conflict – ‘spell doom’? And why is Ban so keen on the ethnic status of Israel’s ‘Jewish democracy’ vision, considering that it was Israel’s demographic obsession that pushed Palestinians to live under military Occupation or live under perpetual racial discrimination in Israel itself?

The fact is that there is more to Ban’s muddled language than a UN chief who is desperately trying to find the balance in his words, so that he may end his mission without registering any serious controversies, or raise the ire of Israel and the US.

(Incidentally, Israeli Ambassador to the UN, Danny Danon, still ranted against the UN chief for calling Israel’s illegal Jewish settlements ‘illegal’ in his address. Other Israeli commentators raged against him for being a ‘liar’. Strange that even repeating old, irrefutable facts is still a cause of anger in Israel.)

Yet again, this is not the matter of the choice for words. A WikiLeaks document from August 2014 is an excellent case in point.

According to the document released by WikiLeaks, Ban collaborated secretly with the US to undermine a report issued by the UN’s own Board of Inquiry’s report on Israeli bombing of UN schools in Gaza during the war of December 2008-January 2009.

‘Collaborated’ is actually a soft reference to that event, where Susan Rice – then the White House National Security Adviser – called on him repeatedly to bury the report, not to bring it to the Council for discussion and, eventually, to remove the strongly-phrased recommendations of ‘deeper’ and ‘impartial’ investigations into the bombing of the UN facilities.

When Ban explained to Rice that he was constrained by the fact that the Board of Inquiry is an independent body, she told him to provide a cover letter that practically disowns the recommendations as ones that “exceeded the scope of the terms of reference and (that) no further action is needed.”

Ban Ki-Moon obliged.

When the UN chief is gone, he will be missed – but certainly not by Palestinians in Gaza or refugees in Syria, or war victims in Afghanistan. But by the likes of Susan Rice, whose job was made very easy, when all she needed to do was merely instruct the chief of the largest international organization on earth to do exactly as she wished; and, for him, to gladly do so.

In his last visit to Palestine in June, Ban Ki-Moon told distraught Gazans that the “UN will always be with you.”

As tens of thousands there still stand on the rubble of their own homes, denied freedom to move or rebuild, Ban Ki-Moon’s statement is as forgettable as the man’s legacy at the United Nations.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is a media consultant, an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My Father was A Freedom Fighter: Gaza’s Untold Story (Pluto Press).

Too much talking, not enough action-UN Tells israel to Stop Building Settlements. Building Surges.

UN Tells Israel to Stop Building Settlements. Building Surges.

The U.N.’s Middle East envoy told the Security Council that its warning against illegal settlement expansion fell on deaf ears.

Israeli settlement expansion has surged in the two months since the diplomatic Quartet called for a halt to the construction of illegal Jewish outposts on Palestinian land, the U.N. envoy said Monday.

In a much-awaited report, the Quartet—the United States, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations—urged Israel to stop building settlements and called on the Palestinians to cease the alleged incitement of violence.

But Nickolay Mladenov, the U.N. coordinator for the Middle East peace process, acknowledged that this appeal had fallen on deaf ears.

“Its recommendations continue to be ignored, including by a surge in Israeli settlement-related announcements and continuing demolitions,” Mladenov told the Security Council.

The Quartet report was to serve as the basis for reviving the Israeli-Palestinian peace process that has been comatose since a U.S. initiative collapsed in April 2014.

There has been growing alarm that the construction of Jewish settlements on land internationally recognized as part of a future Palestinian state is killing off prospects for a peace deal based on the two-state solution.

Since July 1, Israel has advanced plans for over 1,000 housing units in occupied east Jerusalem and 735 units in the West Bank, Mladenov said.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government is also seeking tenders for 323 units to expand east Jerusalem settlements and for 42 units in Kiryat Arba near Hebron, for which it is allocating US$13 million in new funding.

Israel has undertaken a land survey on the outskirts of Bethlehem for the establishment of a new settlement in a move that would contribute to the “dismemberment of the southern West Bank,” said Mladenov.

The U.N. envoy warned that demolitions of Palestinian homes are on the rise in the West Bank, with over 130 structures destroyed this year alone.

Mladenov singled out the Bedouin communities from east Jerusalem and the Susiya area in the southern West Bank, warning that “the demolition of this community would set a dangerous precedent for displacement.”

Palestinians Can’t Use PayPal—but Israeli Settlers Can

Netanyahu, who is currently overseeing the most right-wing government in Israel’s history, has repeatedly rejected calls for a halt to settlement expansion, arguing that the illegal projects are not an obstacle to peace.

“All of these plans would essentially create new illegal settlements and I call on Israel to cease and reverse these decisions,” Mladenov added.

The U.N.’s warning comes at a time when tension are high in Israel and Palestinian amid a new wave of violence in the West Bank as attacks target soldiers at checkpoints in the occupied West Bank as well as illegal settlers who live on Palestinian lands.

Thus a settlement expansion will not only kill off chances in a two-state solution but also continue to alienate Palestinians and exacerbate their sense of hopelessness in the face of the decades-long occupation.

Earlier this year, U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon said the recent escalation of violence in the West Bank, was the result of growing Palestinian frustration “under the weight of a half century of occupation and the paralysis of the peace process.”

Also Israeli Military Intelligence Directorate head Major General Herzi Halevi said last November that despair and frustration among young Palestinians are driving much of the violence, with many feeling they have nothing to lose.

The Security Council declared Israeli settlements in occupied territory to be illegal in a resolution adopted in 1979. Mladenov said that determination was “equally true and even more urgent a concern today.”


The hypocrites who take the first place in media and politics: De Mistura- Ould Cheikh- the two Al Asiri’s – Hollande – Ki Moon – Clinton

Written by Nasser Kandil,

A gathering of the hypocrites leads the way of the major global and regional political events, but we can exclude from them many in this article because it does not accommodate them all, especially who is preoccupied with his troubles as the case of the Turkish President who has swore that he would pray in the Omayyad Mosque in Damascus or in Aleppo, but he did not do what is suitable for a leader or a commander to do when his plans fall and fail, or when he claims that the variables have changed his priorities and thus he explains and announces the change.

Or as the one who has said that he will come to Beirut through Damascus International Airport and he pretended to have forgotten his talk, instead he has accused others of linking the Lebanese situation of what is going on in Syria.

Or the who has raised the banners of Al Nusra Front as a moderation force and has called to give it security and military privileges as what he called it Nusra Land similar to what the Palestinian resistance has got in the seventies of the last century in Cairo’s Agreement and also has pretended to have forgotten and has betted that the people might forget.

Those who are present in the list of the hypocrites are not the absentness, but those who are present these days with their long tongues and glassed- eyes that do not know how to be shy, at their forefront the UN Envoy to Syria Steffan De Mistura who pretended to be weeping for the blockade that has started few days ago on the neighborhoods of Aleppo which are under the control of the militants.

He knows fully that an extended blockade for years around two neighboring towns does not reduce the danger of the blockade, because those who were besieged there are maybe thousands. De Mistura said before about Daraya that the issue is a humanitarian that is not measured by the number but by the human pain. De Mistura the UN Envoy of the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon to the crises know that his insistence on linking any political solution in Syria by mentioning the future of the Syrian President is an exaggerated hypocrisy, but he does not care or be ashamed if one asks him what if the Syrian President proposes to the Syrian opposition what is presented by the UN draft of the Yemeni solution which got your approval before presenting it to the National Forces there, but you know the legitimacy of the Syrian President according to the legal and the constitutional standards is present by the power of resorting to the ballot boxes contrary to the Yemeni President whose mandate has ended, you know as well that the popular legitimacy which is shown in the announced loyalties and in the cohesion of the main structure of the country around him especially the army, the diplomacy, and the administration that are not comparable with the case of Mansour Hadi who did not find neither in Sanaa nor in Aden anyone who carry a flag waiving with it or any soldier who raises his gun defending on him. You know as well that the Syrian opposition has got opportunities to have control over Syria that the Yemeni National Forces which dominated on Yemen before the Saudi invasion have not got any of them, despite the differences of the wild open borders of Syria, the external support, and the partnership of the formations of Al-Qaeda, in exchange of the siege which faces the Yemeni National Forces and the purity of their choice in confronting the terrorism. What the UN draft proposes in Yemen allows the Syrian President to say; in front of the opposition there is a temporal timetable for the solution that is based on giving the areas under their dominance to the legitimacy and on giving the weapons within forty five days, and then the search into the political issue begins, what will De Mistura say but only that he is a hypocrite?

Ould Cheikh Ahmed who works in the Yemeni file as a UN Envoy is a hypocrite as his colleague and his master De Mistura, he knows what his master teaches him, he does not wonder  what if the Yemeni National Forces say that they will accept what is being proposed to the Syrian opposition where there is a ruling regime that engages with its opponents with weapons, they share the national geography as in Yemen, but  with two differences, first is that the Syrian opposition which constitutes in its controlling areas a geography in the North and in the South through the geographic contiguity not through checking the choices and the intentions a gate for unhidden external Turkish and Saudi interventions.

Second, the dominant forces on the military aspect of the Syrian opposition are terrorist organizations that got the agreement on their classification as an expansion of Al-Qaeda organization. Despite the weakness of the popularity and the nationalism of this opposition which is contested of its independence and purity, the Yemeni National Forces accept what is being presented to it, by accepting the linking of any security solution with a political one, and linking any political solution with a partnership in the rule, where it has the right of dealing with linking the fate of presidency with any circulating political solution, Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed will answer that he is hypocrite as his master.

The two Al Asiris the Brigadier General and the Ambassador, the first one says that Saudi Arabia is not a part of the internal conflict in Yemen and he wants from the people to believe that the war of extermination which waged by Saudi Arabia in Yemen a year ago is a war that is not related to the protection of Yemeni team that the internal confrontations proved while he is taking over the responsibility of the rule that he is without any popular support, he does not have but the Saudi invasion to impose it on the Yemenis. And this war is the peak of the intervention in the Yemeni issue, moreover the team which is depended by Saudi Arabia does not dare to utter any word on the negotiating table without Saudi royal demand, so he is just a Saudi tool.

While the second Alisiri, the ambassador wanted the people to believe that Saudi Arabia does not interfere in the Lebanese Presidential affairs, but it has the same distance from all the Lebanese parties, but he himself said after the announcement of the nomination of the Deputy Suleiman Franjieh by the Prime Minister Saad Al-Hariri that this nomination has got the support of his masters in the Kingdom, before he retreated and talked about the Lebanese compatibility, while regarding the same distance from all the Lebanese parties; Was not his speech against Hezbollah at the last dinner a doubtless proof of the Saudi neutrality among the Lebanese parties?

Ban Ki Moon and Francois Hollande have heartrending regarding the safe corridors which Syria and Russia have announced after the military process in Aleppo, they refuse the principle of the corridors, and then they ask once again to set these corridors under the supervision of international observers. It is known that the issue is just about securing the supply lines for the militants which they lost them, not an issue that is related to the civilians whom the talk of Ban Ki Moon and Hollande few months ago was about securing safe areas for them on the Turkish borders, according to Erdogan’s plan for the establishment of a buffer zone. The matter did not require neither a talk about its lack of necessity and restricting the search in how to send the supplies to the trapped, nor about the UN supervision on the corridors. There is one interpretation that they are at the top of the hypocrites’ list.

Hillary Clinton the US presidential candidate talks about that she will change the plan in Syria if she assumes the presidency putting the termination of the rule of the Syrian President as a priority, she ignores that she did that when she was a US Secretary of State, she told the militants do not accept to lay down your weapons then she said that there is no danger of the terrorism in Syria, because the coming of Al-Qaeda organization is a temporal matter that will end soon.

As a US Secretary of State she secured the chemical weapons from Libya to the armed groups and to Al Nusra front in particular by the US embassy in Benghazi. Thus the racing of Al-Qaeda groups and its branches to this weapon was behind the killing of the US ambassador there as was stated by the US investigations, so what is left for Clinton to do what she could not do while in Ministry  and will be provided by the presidency other than the buttons of the nuclear war? So will she do that as a president or will she like to be at the forefront of the hypocrites’ list?

Translated by Lina Shehadeh,

منافقون يتصدّرون الإعلام والسياسة: دي ميستورا ـ ولد الشيخ ـ العسيريان هولاند ـ كي مون ـ كلينتون

ناصر قنديل

– يحتلّ جمع من المنافقين واجهة الأحداث السياسية العالمية والإقليمية الكبرى، يمكن أن نستثني منهم الكثير في هذه المقالة لعدم اتساعها لهم جميعاً، خصوصاً من ينشغل منهم بمصائبه كحال الرئيس التركي الذي أقسم أغلظ الإيمان بأنه سيصلي في المسجد الأموي في دمشق أو في حلب، ولم يفعل ما يليق بكلّ زعيم أو قائد أن يفعل عندما تسقط خططه وتفشل أو يدّعي أنّ المتغيّرات قد قلبت سلّم أولوياته بأن يشرح ذلك ويعلن التغيير، أو كمن قال إنه سيأتي بيروت عن طريق مطار دمشق وتناسى القول، وصار يرمي تهمة ربط الوضع اللبناني بما يجري في سورية على سواه، أو مَن رفع يافطات جبهة النصرة كقوة اعتدال ودعا إلى منحها امتيازات أمنية وعسكرية بما أسماه «نصرة لاند» أسوة بما حصلت عليه المقاومة الفلسطينية في سبعينيات القرن الماضي في اتفاق القاهرة، وتناسى وراهن أنّ الناس تنسى.

– مَن يحضرون في قائمة المنافقين هنا ليسوا الغائبين عن المسرح منهم، بل الحاضرون هذه الأيام بألسنة طويلة وعيون من زجاج لا تعرف الخجل، يتقدّمهم المبعوث الأممي إلى سورية ستيفان دي ميستورا، الذي يتباكى على حصار بدأ منذ أيام على أحياء حلب التي يسيطر عليها المسلحون، ويعلم علم اليقين أنّ حصاراً ممتداً منذ سنوات على بلدتين قريبتين منها، لا يقلل من خطر الحصار وشأنه أن يكون المحاصرون بالآلاف، فدي ميستورا قال من قبل عن داريا إنّ المسألة الإنسانية لا تقاس بالعدد بل بالألم الإنساني. ودي ميستورا رئيس مبعوثي الأمين العام للأمم المتحدة بان كي مون للأزمات، يعلم أنّ إصراره على ربط أيّ حلّ سياسي في سورية بإدماج فقرة فيه عن مستقبل الرئيس السوري هي نفاق مبالغ فيه، فلا يخجل ولا يرفّ له جفن إنْ سأله أحد ماذا لو عرض الرئيس السوري على المعارضة السورية ما تعرضه مسودّة الحلّ اليمني الأممية التي حظيت بموافقتك قبل عرضها على القوى الوطنية هناك، وأنت تعلم أنّ شرعية الرئيس السوري بالمعايير القانونية والدستورية قائمة بقوة الاحتكام لصناديق الاقتراع خلافاً للرئيس اليمني المنتهية ولايته، كما تعلم انّ الشرعية الشعبية المترجمة في الولاءات المعلنة وفي تماسك البنية الرئيسية للدولة حوله، خصوصاً الجيش والدبلوماسية والإدارة، لا يمكن المقارنة بينها وبين حالة منصور هادي الذي لم يجد لا في صنعاء ولا في عدن مَن يحمل علماً يلوّح له به ولا جندياً يرفع بندقيته دفاعاً عنه، وتعلم في المقابل أنّ المعارضة السورية نالت فرصاً للسيطرة على سورية لم تحظ بالبعض منها القوى الوطنية اليمنية التي سيطرت قبل الغزو السعودي على كلّ اليمن، رغم فوارق الحدود البرية المفتوحة لسورية والدعم الخارجي وشراكة تشكيلات «القاعدة» معها، مقابل الحصار الذي يواجه القوى الوطنية اليمنية ونقاء خيارها في مواجهة الإرهاب، وما تعرضه المسودة الأممية في اليمن، تسمح للرئيس السوري بالقول إنّ أمام المعارضة برنامج زمني للحلّ يقوم على تسليم مناطق سيطرتها للشرعية وتسليم الأسلحة خلال خمسة وأربعين يوماً، وبعدها يبدأ البحث في الملف السياسي، ماذا سيقول دي ميستورا سوى أنه منافق؟

ولد الشيخ أحمد العامل في ملف اليمن كمبعوث أممي منافق كزميله وأستاذه دي ميستورا، فهو يعلم ما يعلمه معلمه، ولا يتساءل ماذا لو قالت القوى الوطنية اليمنية إنها ترتضي ما يعرض على المعارضة السورية من حيث نظام حاكم يشتبك مع معارضيه بالسلاح، ويتقاسمان الجغرافيا الوطنية كما في اليمن، مع فارقَين هما أنّ المعارضة السورية تشكل في مناطق سيطرتها جغرافياً في الشمال والجنوب، عبر التواصل الجغرافي وليس عبر محاكمة الخيارات والنيات، واجهة لتدخلات خارجية تركية وسعودية غير مخفية، والثانية أنّ القوى المهيمنة على الشق العسكري من المعارضة السورية هي تنظيمات إرهابية مجمع على تصنيفها كامتداد لتنظيم «القاعدة»، ورغم ذلك الضعف في وطنية وشعبية هذه المعارضة المطعون باستقلالها ونقائها، ترتضي القوى الوطنية اليمنية التماثل معها، وتقبل ما يُعرض عليها، من قبول بربطها ايّ حلّ أمني بالحلّ السياسي، وربط أيّ حلّ سياسي بشراكة في الحكم، ويترك لها حق التداول في ربط مصير الرئاسة بأيّ حلّ سياسي متداول، سيجيب إسماعيل ولد الشيخ أحمد أنه منافق كأستاذه.

– العسيريان العميد والسفير، الأول يقول إنّ السعودية ليست طرفاً في الصراع الداخلي في اليمن ويريد من الناس أن تصدّق أنّ حرب الإبادة التي تخوضها السعودية في اليمن منذ سنة، هي حرب لا تتصل بحماية فريق يمني أثبتت المواجهات الداخلية، وهو يمسك بمقاليد الحكم، أنه بلا تأييد شعبي، ولا يملك سوى الغزو السعودي لفرضه على اليمنيّين، وأنّ هذه الحرب هي ذروة التدخل في الشأن اليمني، وأنّ الفريق الذي تعتمده السعودية لا يجرؤ على التنفّس بكلمة على طاولة التفاوض بلا أمر ملكي سعودي، وأنه مجرد أداة سعودية، والعسيري الثاني السفير يريد للناس أن تصدق أنّ السعودية لا تتدخل في الشأن الرئاسي اللبناني، بل أنها تقف على مسافة واحدة من الأطراف اللبنانيين، وهو نفسه كان قد قال بعد الإعلان عن ترشيح الرئيس سعد الحريري للنائب سليمان فرنجية، أن هذا الترشيح يحظى بدعم أسياده في المملكة قبل أن يتراجع ويتحدّث عن التوافق اللبناني، أما عن المسافة الواحدة من الأطراف فكلامه بحق حزب الله على مائدة العشاء الأخير دليل لا يقبل الشك على الحياد السعودي بين الأطراف اللبنانية؟

بان كي مون وفرنسوا هولاند قلبهما مفطور على الممرات الآمنة التي أعلنتها سورية وروسيا بعد العملية العسكرية في حلب، ويرفضان مبدأ الممرات أولاً ثم يطلبان ثانياً وضع الممرات تحت إشراف مراقبين دوليين، ومعلوم أنّ القضية ليست إلا تأمين خطوط إمداد للمسلحين الذين فقدوها وليست قضية المدنيين، الذين كان حديث بان كي مون وهولاند قبل شهور عن تأمين مناطق آمنة لهم على الحدود التركية عملاً بخطة أردوغان لإقامة منطقة عازلة، ولم يكن الأمر يستدعي لا الحديث عن عدم ضرورتها وحصر البحث في إدخال المؤن للمحاصرين ولا في مراقبة أممية على الممرات، وليس من تفسير إلا أنهما على رأس لائحة المنافقين.

هيلاري كلينتون المرشحة للرئاسة الأميركية تتحدّث عن أنها ستغيّر الخطة في سورية إذا تولت الرئاسة، وتضع إنهاء حكم الرئيس السوري كأولوية، وتتجاهل أنها فعلت ذلك كوزيرة للخارجية، فقالت للمسلحين لا تقبلوا بإلقاء السلاح، ثم قالت إن ليس هناك خطر للإرهاب في سورية، وإنّ مجيء تنظيم «القاعدة» شأن عارض سيزول قريباً، وقامت كوزيرة للخارجية بتأمين السلاح الكيميائي من ليبيا للجماعات المسلحة وخصوصاً لجبهة النصرة في سورية بواسطة السفارة الأميركية في بنغازي، وكان تسابق جماعات «القاعدة» وفروعها على هذا السلاح وراء مقتل السفير الأميركي هناك، كما تقول وثائق التحقيقات الأميركية، فماذا بقي لكلينتون مما لم تملك فعله في الوزارة وستوفره لها الرئاسة غير أزرار الحرب النووية، فهل هذا ما ستفعله كرئيسة أم أنها ترغب بتصدّر سجل المنافقين؟

Saudi Arabia Yet to Sway UN over Yemen Coalition Blacklisting

Riyadh has not provided enough proof that it should be permanently removed from the UN blacklist over killing Yemen children, UN diplomatic sources said on Monday.

UN officials plan to travel to Riyadh to obtain more details on various issues, such as rules of engagement, one of the sources said.

A UN annual report on children and armed conflict said the coalition was responsible for 60 percent of child deaths and injuries in Yemen last year, killing 510 and wounding 667. The Saudi-led coalition includes United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Senegal and Sudan.Yemen children

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon temporarily removed the coalition from the blacklist – contained in an annex to the report – on June 6 pending a joint review after Saudi Arabia, a key UN donor, threatened to cut funding to the world body.

Ban is to brief the UN Security Council on the report on Tuesday. He plans to tell the 15-member council that the United Nations will continue to work with Saudi Arabia on the issue and reinforce that only the blacklist is under review, not the substance of the report, a UN diplomatic source said told Reuters news agency.

In a rare move, Ban – who steps down at the end of the year after a decade in the top UN job – publicly slammed Saudi Arabia for exerting unacceptable pressure on the world body over the children and armed conflict report. Diplomatic sources told Reuters in June that Riyadh suggested a fatwa – an Islamic legal opinion – could be placed on the world body.

“He came out of this bruised and unhappy,” said a second UN diplomatic source, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Ban has since met with Saudi Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir. Two weeks ago Saudi Arabia sent a letter that diplomatic sources said did not address UN concerns about the risks to children in Yemen and was described by one source as “superficial.”

A second letter received by the United Nations last Thursday “does not address yet all of our concerns, but is good enough to continue with the joint evaluation,” said one of the diplomatic sources, speaking on condition of anonymity.

“They are willing to continue to be engaged, they formally accept international humanitarian law, and give all sorts of info useful to avoid and prevent future incidents affecting children,” said the source.

Yemen has been since March 26, 2015 under brutal aggression by Saudi-led coalition.
Thousands have been martyred and injured in the attack, with the vast majority of them are civilians.

Riyadh launched the attack on Yemen in a bid to restore power to fugitive ex-president Abd Rabbu Mansour Hadi who is a close ally to Saudi Arabia.

Source: Agencies

02-08-2016 – 10:27 Last updated 02-08-2016 – 10:32


Related Videos

Related Articles

Imam Khamenei Urges Muslims to Raise Voice in Support of Palestine in Quds Day

Leader of the Islamic Revolution in Iran Imam Sayyed Ali Khamenei called for wide participation in Al-Quds Day rallies all over the world, as he slammed the United Nations for turning a blind eye to Saudi Arabia’s violations in Yemen.

In a meeting with the Judiciary officials on Wednesday evening, Imam Khameneni called for a high turnout in the Quds Day, which falls on Friday.

The Leader said that the Iranian nation and Muslims all around the world will once again raise their voice in support of the Palestinian people on Friday.

The International Quds Day is an annual event during which demonstrators across the world express their solidarity with the oppressed Palestinian people and opposition to the occupation of the Palestinian territories by the Zionist entity.

The day, which falls on the last Friday of the holy month of Ramadan, was named by the late Founder of the Islamic Revolution, Imam Khomeini.

UN’s ‘Blind Eye’

Meanwhile, Imam Khamenei slammed UN over Saudis’ child killing in Yemen.

“The UN’s turning a blind eye to the ongoing crimes and child killing in Yemen in exchange for money from some countries” is a disgrace to humanity, with which the Islamic Republic “must deal legally and judicially across the globe.”

Earlier this month, the United Nations briefly blacklisted Saudi Arabia for children’s rights violations in Yemen based on the results of a report which stated the monarchy was responsible for 60 percent of the 785 underage deaths in Yemen last year. But on June 6, United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon removed the kingdom from the list.

Following the U-turn by the UN, Ban admitted that the Saudis were temporarily removed from the list after they administered “undue pressure” on the world body by threatening to cut off funding to humanitarian programs.

The Leader also stressed that the West’s definition of human rights is established on “false foundations”, therefore “Islamic human rights based on firm and rational foundations have to be defined and pursued” at global legal bodies.

Pursuing Violated Iran’s Rights

On the other hand, Imam Khamenei said the judiciary system in the Islamic Republic should pursue the case of Iran’s violated rights during the sanctions.
“Violation of the Iranian people’s rights as a result of sanctions must be pursued judicially on a global scale,” the Leader said.

After Iran and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council – the United States, France, Britain, China and Russia – plus Germany started implementing the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on January 16, all nuclear-related sanctions imposed on Iran by the European Union, the Security Council and the US were lifted. Iran, in return, has put some limitations on its nuclear activities.

In April, the US Supreme Court ruled that around $2 billion of Iran’s frozen assets blocked under US sanctions be turned over to the American families of the victims of a 1983 bombing in the Lebanese capital Beirut and other attacks allegedly blamed on Iran. The Islamic Republic has denied any role in the attacks.

Source: Agencies

30-06-2016 – 11:11 Last updated 30-06-2016 – 11:11

Related Articles

U.N. Bows To Saudi Financial Threats, Removes KSA From Child Killers List

Despite the crowing of Western nations like the United States, Britain, France and other NATO countries, as well as the United Nations, regarding “human rights violations” in countries like Syria (where the main rights violators have been Western-backed terrorists funded by the West itself) and Iran, Saudi Arabia has continued apace with its policy of floggings, imprisonment, torture, and beheadings for offenses such as “insulting Islam,” “establishing liberal websites” and “sorcery” to the tune of little to no criticism by the West.

While Syria was, without a doubt, the most secular and safest place in the Middle East for minorities (ethnic and religious) and women before the 2011 Western-backed destabilization, Saudi Arabia maintained its policy of slavery and gross oppression of women. The righteous and sanctimonious West, however, said not a word about the savage feudal monarchy of the House of Saud.

After numerous reports began surfacing regarding Saudi cruelty and the oppressive Saudi state, and after a massive torrent of coverage coming from the alternative press, the crimes of the Saudi monarchy could no longer be completely ignored; a fact which has highlighted not only the horrors of Saudi leadership but the hypocrisy of the West.

Thus, after a significant exposé of Saudi war crimes and human rights violations at home and abroad, even the United Nations could no longer remain silent.

As a result, the U.N.’s “Children And Armed Conflict” report for 2015 listed Saudi Arabia and its anti-Houthi coalition in Yemen as “parties that kill or maim children” and “parties that engage in attacks on schools and/or hospitals.” The report’s findings were based on the work of U.N. researchers stationed in Yemen who attributed 60 percent of killed and injured children in that country to the bombs dropped by the Saudi coalition. Yet Saudi Arabia’s name was eventually struck off the list provided in the report less than a week after it was released, a decision that was made by U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.

The reason for Ki-moon’s “revision” of the report was simple – he was threatened with the loss of funds being provided for U.N. relief efforts in Syria, Sudan, and Palestine if he did not remove Saudi Arabia from the list of child killers. Although Ki-moon did not mention who it was that threatened him, it was apparent that the threats came from the Saudis who did all but admit that they were, indeed, the country suggesting they would withhold funds.

“We didn’t use threats but such listing will obviously have an impact on our relations with the U.N.,” said Saudi Ambassador to the U.N. Abdallah al-Mouallimi. Saudi Arabia is the largest donor to the United Nations in the Middle East and has provided the organization with millions for programsaimed at Syria, Iraq, and Palestine.

“The report describes horrors no child should have to face,” Ki-moon said. “At the same time, I also had to consider the very real prospect that millions of other children would suffer grievously if, as was suggested to me, countries would defund many U.N. programs. Children already at risk in Palestine, South Sudan, Syria, Yemen, and so many other places would fall further into despair.”

In other words, Ki-moon has abandoned children in Yemen for money. Plain and simple. There is no way around it. He can claim that he made a risks/benefits analysis and a decision for the greater good but, at the end of the day, he sold children down the river for cash.

None of this is surprising, of course. But it does highlight a number of problems that need to be addressed.

First, it is apparent that the mainstream and official willful ignorance and failure to address Saudi war crimes and crimes against humanity are going to continue.

Second, it is apparent that the United Nations is exactly what so many informed observers and U.N. critics have always known it to be – a corrupt embodiment of the worker bees for a world oligarchy in need of an official world governance structure.

Third, this situation illustrates the immense dangers surrounding the growth of the power of the United Nations in world affairs as well as any other “global governance” institution that supersedes national sovereignty. Indeed, the U.N. reaction to Saudi Arabia’s threats are a perfect example of why organizations like the United Nations are incredibly dangerous to the individual liberties and living standards of every human being on earth. With as much power as the United Nations and its international sister organizations like the WTO, World Bank, IMF and others already have over the decisions of individual nations, one need not look very far to see the dangers that a United Nations acting as an official world government structure – a destination at which the U.N. is rapidly arriving – would potentially pose to the world’s people.

After all, the United Nations has been known for some time to merely be a global version of what is already in existence at the national level – a gaggle of corrupt bureaucrats and oligarchs intent on maintaining their own power. This is why the United States can march across the earth, visiting death and destruction on innocent people with no condemnation, and a simple financial threat can eliminate any condemnation of murdering children abroad.

While many well-meaning observers may have an idealistic view of the United Nations as an organization that stands above the fray, with the best interest of the world’s most disadvantaged people, women, oppressed minorities, and children at heart, the recent decision by Ban Ki-moon should serve as proof that the United Nations is every bit as dirty and favorable to world financial power as any national government. These proponents of increased U.N. authority should think long and hard before they wish away their sovereignty to an international body that so blatantly makes decisions on human rights with a calculator.

Any further authority granted to the U.N. will thus be nothing more than a worldwide version of the U.S. government with a healthy dash of the Soviet Union thrown into the mix.

Image Credit: TheFreeThoughtProject.com

Brandon Turbeville – article archive here – is the author of seven books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom7 Real ConspiraciesFive Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1 andvolume 2The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria, and The Difference it Makes: 36 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Should Never Be President. Turbeville has published over 650 articles on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville’s radio show Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV. His website is BrandonTurbeville.com He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com.

This article may be freely shared in part or in full with author attribution and source link.

%d bloggers like this: