Old habits, linger … linger well past the time when old rituals (an Israeli PM visit to the Oval Office) had agency and the world hung on the outcome. (Al Mayadeen English; Illustrated by Arwa Makki)
Director of Conflicts Forum; Former Senior British Diplomat; Author.
An image of the White House lecturing, and facing off versus Netanyahu’s policies, might look ‘tough’ … but will any of this elaborate ‘dance’ — whether Biden and Netanyahu meet or not — make a jot of difference?
The Financial Times adopts a dour tone: The final statement of the G20 on Ukraine was “a blow to Western countries that have tried to convince developing countries to condemn Moscow – and support Ukraine over the past year,” adding gloomily that this latest declaration was drained of even the previous inclusion of ‘Russian aggression against Ukraine.’ “Now,” the FT laments, “there is no such wording.”
This may seem a symbolic omission, but it links directly to Ukraine’s failure to make any progress with its offensive against Russian defensive lines. Here is where symbolism speaks louder than words: The omission says that the collective Western élites are out-of-sync with the rest of the world. Washington will have to ‘cope’ with the consequences of their ‘project failure’ — and manage it from an unaccustomed position of weakness, rather than through collective pressure on Moscow.
It should have been obvious, coming so soon after the BRICS expansion and the Africa Summit in Saint Petersburg, that collective global sentiment had turned sour on the prevalent ‘Rules-Based Order’, and has entered a quite radical mode.
Yet, much of the ruling strata still do not ‘get it’ – that change is coming.
The habits of the ‘old order,’ however, are slow to evolve. So, we return to an old-style dance, and to a music that evokes another era: Will the Israeli PM meet directly with Biden, either on the margins of the September UN General Assembly, or in the Oval Office of the White House? These pirouettes and swirls have been continuing for nine months now, infused with breathless anticipation.
There are, of course, real issues at the centre of this performance: The US would like Netanyahu to join the tech boycott of China, and generally to help diminish China. Secondly, Team Biden would like the Israeli government to recant its project of Judicial Reform; and thirdly, to ‘throw the Palestinians a bone or two’ as part of persuading Saudi Arabia to normalise with Israel in a tripartite – US-Saudi-Israeli — deal.
The putative ‘deal’ would be shaped around a US-Saudi defence pact — including US security guarantees, a multibillion-dollar arms deal, and a nuclear reactor — in exchange for Saudi recognition of “Israel,” a cooling-off of relations with China, and tangible Israeli measures to ameliorate the lives of the Palestinians.
With this curt listing of the Biden wish-list, what stands out immediately is that none the US big ‘asks’ are in Netanyahu’s interest:
Severing with China on tech? No way; “Israel” has billed itself as the ‘Tech Start-Up Nation’.
On September 12, “Israel’s” Supreme Court will consider petitions seeking the disqualification of July’s Knesset law removing ‘unreasonableness’ as the criteria by which the Court can elect to strike down laws passed (validly) in Parliament.
However, Knesset Speaker Amir Ohana has already said that the Supreme Court should recognize the limits of its power; that it cannot strike down a Basic Law; and that the Knesset shall not be trampled upon. Plainly put, the Minster is saying that the government will not comply, were the Court to strike down July’s Knesset vote. And Netanyahu has endorsed Ohana’s statement. So, ‘no’ — endangering his coalition is not in Netanyahu’s interest.
The reality is that Netanyahu is ‘hostage’ to his coalition — and not vice versa. And the reality is also that in recent months, entire Palestinian communities between Ramallah and Jericho have been chased out (i.e. cleansed) by settler violence, paving the way for a total Israeli takeover of thousands of acres of land.
Gideon Levy has warned that ‘an unbelievable population transfer’ is underway in the West Bank.
Yes, a photo-op with Biden is thought likely to lend credibility to Netanyahu’s electoral prospects at home. For Biden, an image of the White House lecturing, and facing-off versus Netanyahu’s policies, might look ‘tough’ … but will any of this elaborate ‘dance’ — whether Biden and Netanyahu meet or not — make a jot of difference?
When set against the tide of geo-politics sweeping the globe towards a new political, trading and economic disposition, it becomes hard to see why such attention is given to this issue.
Even though both Presidents Xi and Putin were absent from the G20, their ‘presence’ dominated the meeting. Will then “Israel’s” cutting back of relations with China halt the tide moving in China’s direction? Will US ‘security guarantees’ for Saudi Arabia, even if approved by Congress, make a significant difference, given the Kingdom’s strategic transposition to join the BRICS and the SCO? Would giving $1 billion to Mahmoud Abbas change the boiling Palestinian cauldron?
The point here is that the rancorous face-off in “Israel” by two irreconcilable blocs of Israeli society is ‘what it is.’ A word here or there from Washington will not change the powerful and volatile dynamics already in motion.
Old habits, however, linger … linger well past the time when old rituals (an Israeli PM visit to the Oval Office) had agency and the world hung on the outcome. As the G18 just demonstrated, however, it is how the Ukraine drama unfolds that will make its impress upon global geo-politics. The Middle East ‘steamer’ is coming to high pressure across Lebanon, Palestine, Syria, and Iraq. Is the West again out-of-synch with uncomfortable realities?
The opinions mentioned in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Al mayadeen, but rather express the opinion of its writer exclusively.
1. The goal of the 76-th session of the UN General Assembly (GA) is to reaffirm the central and coordinating role of the Organization in international affairs. Owing to its representativeness and universality, the UN is rightfully viewed as a unique platform for an equitable dialogue aimed at reaching compromise solutions with due regard to different opinions. Attempts to undermine the authority and legitimacy of the UN are, in our view, extremely dangerous, as they can lead to the dismantlement of the multipolar system of international relations.
2. We have consistently advocated the strengthening of the genuine multilateral framework of international relations and world economy based on the norms of international law, including the UN Charter, with an emphasis on the unconditional respect for the sovereignty of States and non-interference in their internal affairs. We deem unacceptable the attempts of Western States to replace the universally recognized international legal principles with the so-called “rules-based world order” elaborated behind the scenes.
3. We support the coordinated efforts of the international community to curb the spread of the new coronavirus infection as well as to mitigate its consequences in the political, health care, social and economic sectors. In this regard, we consider it unacceptable to politicize the issue of COVID-19 dissemination. We also stress the importance of showing unity and solidarity among all Member States and organizations of the United Nations system in the face of a common challenge. Russia stands for a gradual return to the face-to-face format of events at the UN as the epidemiological situation in the world improves.
4. Preventing conflicts and addressing their consequences is our first priority. However, effective international assistance in this sphere, including from the UN, is only possible with the consent of the States concerned and in line with the UN Charter. This applies equally to good offices, preventive diplomacy and mediation, which should be conducted impartially and with respect for the sovereignty of States. It is crucial that there should be no universal “conflict indicators”: each situation calls for a delicate and unbiased approach as well as a thorough search for a tailored solution that would take into account the roots and history of the conflict.
5. We believe that the goal of the UN Security Council reform is to increase the representation of developing States from Africa, Asia and Latin America in the Council without prejudice to its effectiveness and operational efficiency. Efforts to identify the best reform model, which would enjoy consensus or at least the support of the overwhelming majority of Member States, should continue in the current format of Intergovernmental Negotiations. The prerogatives of the UNSC permanent members shall not be subject to revision. The veto power is a unique tool that encourages the necessary compromises and allows the Council to reach well-considered and balanced decisions.
6. We support realistic initiatives to revitalize the work of the UN General Assembly within the relevant Ad Hoc Working Group. We attach particular importance to fine-tuning the UNGA working methods, streamlining its overloaded agenda and strengthening multilingualism. Any innovation should be reasonable and correspond to the current needs. Any redistribution of the powers of other statutory bodies, especially the Security Council, in favour of the General Assembly is unacceptable.
7. We support increased cooperation between the UN and regional and sub-regional organizations in line with the UN Charter, first and foremost, its Chapter VIII. The activities of regional associations, according to the UN Charter, should be in conformity with their objectives and principles. It is essential to further enhance partnership between the UN and such organizations as the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), the BRICS and the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). The biennial resolutions on cooperation between the UN and the CIS, the CSTO and the SCO, uunanimously adopted at the previous 75th UNGA Session, prove the relevance of this task.
8. The distortion of history and revision of the outcomes of World War II are unacceptable. We attach particular importance to the annual UNGA draft resolution on Combating Glorification of Nazism, neo-Nazism and Other Practices that Contribute to Fuelling Contemporary Forms of Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance. This document has traditionally enjoyed the support of the majority of UN Member States. We call on the delegations that abstained or voted against this initiative last year to reconsider their position.
9. The destructive policies of certain extra-regional players in the Middle East and North Africa are clearly part of a global strategy to destroy the UN‑centric architecture established after World War II and replace it with a completely illegitimate “rules-based world order”.
We support the international legal parameters for resolving conflicts in this region agreed upon at the UN and implemented solely through political and diplomatic means. Our proposal to create a regional security architecture in the Persian Gulf and, in the longer term, throughout the whole Middle East remains on the table.
10. One of the top priorities in the Middle East is the Syrian settlement. Achieving lasting and long-term stabilisation and security in the country is only possible through the full restoration of the country’s territorial integrity and sovereignty over its national territory. The continuation of the fight against international terrorist groups recognized as such by the UN Security Council remains critical.
On the political track, we support the promotion of a Syrian-led settlement process implemented by the Syrian people themselves with the UN assistance, as provided for in UNSC resolution 2254. We have consistently supported the relevant work of the Special Envoy of the UN Secretary-General for Syria, Geir Pedersen, but also stressed that his efforts should not go beyond the mandate defined by the Security Council.
There is growing concern about the significant deterioration of the humanitarian and socio-economic situation in the Syrian Arab Republic against the backdrop of tougher unilateral sanctions and the COVID-19 pandemic. We call on responsible members of the international community to refrain from politicising purely humanitarian issues and render assistance to all Syrians in coordination with Damascus, provide for sanctions exemptions for reconstruction projects and facilitate the return of refugees and IDPs.
11. We are convinced that one of the foundations for establishing peace and security in the Middle East is the revival of the Middle East settlement process with the resolution of the Palestinian problem at its core.
We attach key importance to preventing an escalation of violence between Palestinians and Israelis and to providing extensive humanitarian assistance to those affected and in need in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. At the same time, we advocate for the restart of direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations on all issues concerning the final status on the universally recognized international legal basis, including a two-State solution. We call on the parties to show restraint, to refrain from unilateral steps and provocative actions (forced evictions, expropriation of houses and land, settlement construction, arbitrary arrests and any forms of violence) as well as to respect the special status and integrity of the Holy Sites of Jerusalem.
We consider it imperative to step up efforts within the framework of the Middle East Quartet, including its interaction with regional actors. We support the arrangement of a Quartet meeting at the ministerial level.
12. We believe that there is no alternative to a political settlement in Libya. We highlight the need to take into account the views of all Libyan sides, including while planning for international assistance aimed at putting an end to the conflict. We engage with all parties and call for an early cessation of hostilities and the restoration of sustainable and integrated state institutions, including security agencies.
We support the observance of the ceasefire and a political and diplomatic settlement in Libya. All influential political forces should be heard and involved in the political life of the country. We welcome the formation of the Government of National Unity aimed at making arrangements for the national elections scheduled for December 2021. We encourage Libyan actors to seek compromise and to establish strong and effective unified authorities. We support the activities of Special Envoy Ján Kubiš.
13. We advocate for the cessation of hostilities in Yemen, which exacerbate the dire humanitarian situation in the country. We urge the States involved to engage in the dialogue with a view to reaching a comprehensive settlement which would be accepted by all stakeholders in Yemen.
14. We support the Iraqi leadership’s efforts to stabilize security situation and implement long-term social and economic reforms. We emphasize the significance of the forthcoming parliamentary elections. It is important that they contribute to bridging the divide between various ethnic and religious groups and political forces. We welcome the dialogue between Baghdad and Erbil. We believe that Iraq should not be subject to external interference and become an arena for regional rivalries.
15. We consistently pursue the policy aimed at facilitating the process of national reconciliation in Afghanistan. We provide assistance in building a country free from terrorism and drug-related crime. We are seriously concerned about the continuing influence of ISIS in the north and north east of the country as well as the threat of the spillover of terrorist activities into Central Asia and the use of a deteriorating domestic political environment to undermine the peace process. Together with our partners within the “Troika Plus” and with the participation of both Afghan negotiating teams we are working to advance national reconciliation in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. We attach particular importance to regional co-operation, primarily through the SCO and the CSTO. We note the continuing relevance of the Moscow format of consultations on Afghanistan. We support the work of the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA).
16. There is no alternative to the Package of Measures for the Implementation of the Minsk Agreements, enshrined in UNSC resolution 2202, as a framework for the internal settlement in Ukraine. Effective international assistance, including through the UN, should be aimed at implementing this decision and supporting the current settlement format, which includes the Contact Group in Minsk and the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission.
Sustainable political and diplomatic settlement of the internal crisis in Ukraine can only be achieved through a direct dialogue between Kiev and Donbass, while taking into account the legitimate demands of all the regions of Ukraine and its linguistic, ethnic and sectarian groups at the constitutional level. We will continue to actively assist in addressing the acute humanitarian situation in eastern Ukraine, which has persisted for many years and was brought about by the actions of the authorities in Kiev.
We insist on a full, thorough and independent international investigation of the MH17 plane crash over the Ukrainian territory based on irrefutable facts and in line with UNSC resolution 2166. Neither the technical investigation into the causes of the Malaysian Boeing crash conducted by the Dutch Safety Board nor the criminal investigation by the Joint Investigation Team meet these criteria.
We expect that all cases of violence against civilians and journalists that have occurred since the beginning of the internal crisis in Ukraine will be investigated fairly and impartially, and that all those responsible will be brought to justice.
17. The territorial status of Crimea was definitively determined by the Crimean population itself during a referendum in March 2014. Any discussions on the situation in this Russian region that do not involve its residents bear no relation to reality. This issue as well as the situation around the Sea of Azov and the Kerch Strait, which lies within the scope of the Russian-Ukrainian bilateral relations, cannot be part of the UN-led discussion on the developments in Ukraine.
We condemn the efforts of the Ukrainian delegation to introduce the Crimean issue in the UNGA through a politicized resolution on the “militarization” of the peninsula as well as parts of the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov. The resolution is built on groundless, unacceptable accusations against Russia and is intended to put the blame for all of Ukraine’s internal problems on the mythical “Russian aggression”. The document contains Kiev’s twisted interpretation of the provocation it carried out on 25 November 2018, when three Ukrainian vessels attempted to enter the Kerch Strait without first notifying the Russian side. The allegations on the alleged militarization of Crimea and parts of the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov contained in the aforementioned resolution also contradict the truth.
In case this odious draft resolution is again introduced in the UNGA, we call on all States to vote firmly against its adoption.
18. The implementation of the trilateral statements of 9 November 2020 and 11 January 2021 is a priority for normalizing the situation in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict area. We consider it useful to involve UN agencies and in particular the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in humanitarian activities in the Russian peacekeeping operation area. The parameters for their possible work should be agreed upon in direct coordination with Baku and Yerevan.
19. The problem of the Korean Peninsula should be resolved by political and diplomatic means. Building up sanctions pressure is counterproductive. The creation of a new security architecture in North-East Asia that would take into account the legitimate interests of all States in the region, including the DPRK itself, is key to achieving the settlement of this issue. Various Russian-Chinese initiatives, including the relevant “Roadmap’, the “Action Plan” and a UNSC political resolution are all important tools in this regard.
20. The early restoration of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)aimed at settling the situation with the Iranian nuclear program is a priority task. We call on the US to return as soon as possible to full compliance with UNSC resolution 2231 and to implement the JCPOA, including through lifting the unilateral anti-Iranian sanctions imposed after the withdrawal of Washington from the “nuclear deal”.
21. The solution to the Cyprus issue should be elaborated by the Cypriot communities themselves without any external pressure. Russia is guided by relevant UNSC resolutions which call for the formation of a bicommunal, bizonal federation with a single international legal personality, sovereignty and citizenship. The existing security guarantee system has become obsolete, is no longer able to alleviate the concerns of the parties involved and should be replaced with the guarantees from the UN Security Council.
22. Russia fully supports the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the principle of equality of the three state-constituting peoples and the two entities with broad constitutional powers in full compliance with the 1995 Dayton Accords. In this context, we strongly disagree with the so-called appointment of a new High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina by the Steering Board of the Peace Implementation Council. Without the UNSC approval this decision has no executive force. Moreover, the abolition of the Office of the High Representative is long overdue.
23. The settlement of the Kosovo issue should be based on international law, first and foremost on UNSC resolution 1244. Belgrade and Pristina should come to an agreement themselves, while the task of the international community is to help the parties find mutually acceptable solutions without external pressure. The EU, as a mediator in the dialogue in accordance with UNGA resolution 64/298 of 9 September 2010, should seek to ensure that the parties implement the agreed decisions, primarily, the establishment of the Community of Serb municipalities in Kosovo (the CSMK; the agreement reached in 2013 has still not been implemented). We support the work of the UN Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK).
24. Internal disputes in Venezuela can only be resolved by the Venezuelans themselves, through a broad and direct dialogue and with full respect for the country’s Constitution. Effective international cooperation is possible only if it is aimed at supporting such a dialogue.
The illegal unilateral coercive measures imposed against Venezuela undermine the efforts of the Venezuelan authorities to effectively combat the pandemic, as well as impede the normalization of the humanitarian situation in the country and the improvement of the migration situation in the region. Humanitarian assistance should be provided without politicisation and in accordance with the UN guiding principles enshrined in UNGA resolution 46/182.
We will continue to oppose any attempts to question the mandates of Venezuela’s official delegations at various international organizations.
25. We learned with deep sorrow the news of the assassination of the President of Haiti Jovenel Moïse. We have been closely following the investigation into this crime. We are seriously concerned about information regarding the involvement of foreign nationals, including from the US and Colombia, in this brutal murder. This indicates that once again external forces are trying to exploit the purely internal conflict to promote their destructive interests.
We are convinced that the only way to normalize the situation in the country is to reach broad internal political consensus in strict conformity with the universally recognized norms and principles of international law. It is important that all decisions should be taken through peaceful political means by the Haitians themselves, with international support but without destructive external interference in order to elaborate solutions acceptable to the opposing parties.
26. The Final Peace Agreement is the international legal basis for the settlement in Colombia. This document made it possible for the UNSC and the UN Secretary-General to support the peace process. Unilateral attempts to alter the substance of its provisions are unacceptable. Comprehensive sustainable settlement in Colombia is impossible without involving the National Liberation Army (ELN) in the peace process.
27. We call on all parties to the conflict in Myanmar to put an end to violence and launch a constructive dialogue in order to move towards national reconciliation. International community should avoid politicising the issue, refrain from interfering in the internal affairs of a sovereign State and abandon sanctions threats. We emphasize the ASEAN special role in the peace process. The current situation in Myanmar does not pose any threat to international peace and security, thus the only issue on the UNSC agenda in this context should be the situation in the Rakhine State.
28. We support the aspiration of India and Pakistan to normalize relations in the context of the situation in the Kashmir region. We hope that a new escalation along the line of control will be prevented. Only direct negotiations between New Delhi and Islamabad can form the basis for a long-term settlement of this sensitive issue.
29. We believe that conflict settlement in Africa should be based on a leading role of the countries of the African continent and supported by the international community. We call for the strengthening of cooperation between the UN and the African Union as well as the continent’s sub-regional organizations. As a permanent member of the UNSC, we will continue to facilitate a political resolution of the crises in the CAR, the DRC, South Sudan, Somalia, Mali and the Sahara-Sahel region as a whole.
We are firmly committed to actively supporting the efforts of the CAR authorities to improve governance and provide security on the basis of the 2019 peace agreement. At the same time, we will keep engaging constructively with all responsible stakeholders that support stabilisation in the country.
In cooperation with like-minded partners, it is important to assist Sudan in implementing the tasks of the transition period. We insist that the UN Integrated Transition Assistance Mission in Sudan (UNITAMS) should always take into account the views of the authorities in Khartoum.
We stand for in an early normalization of the situation in the Ethiopian region of Tigray. Restoring stability in Ethiopia is certain to have a positive effect on the entire Horn of Africa. We consider the decision of the Federal Government of Ethiopia to establish a ceasefire in the region a step in the right direction. We call on all those involved to support this initiative of the authorities in order to stop the bloodshed and improve the humanitarian and social and economic situation.
30. The UNGA Special Committee on Decolonization (C-24) will remain relevant until a definitive solution to the issue of all 17 Non-Self-Governing Territories is reached. We will continue to actively participate in the work of this body.
31. UN peacekeeping should fully comply with the basic principles of the UN work in this area (consent of the parties, impartiality and non-use of force, except for self-defence and defence of the mandate) as well as with the UN Charter. The primary task is to promote political settlement of conflicts and national reconciliation. The adaptation of UN peacekeeping operations to contemporary realities should be implemented in strict accordance with the decisions agreed upon in the intergovernmental format. This includes, inter alia, the issues of “peacekeeping intelligence” and the use of new technologies, which should serve the sole purpose of ensuring peacekeepers’ safety and protection of civilians. Vesting peacekeeping operations with additional powers, including with respect to the use of force, is only possible upon a UNSC decision that takes into account the specific situation in each country.
The UNGA Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations (C-34) should be responsible for defining the further development of UN peacekeeping activities. Peacebuilding and peacekeeping are inextricably linked and based on the principle of national ownership in prioritising post-conflict reconstruction and development. International support should only be provided upon request of the host government and be aimed at enhancing the States’ own capacity.
32. The UNSC sanctions, as one of the strongest instruments of ‘targeted action’ to tackle threats to international peace and security, should not be abused. As a measure of last resort in the area of conflict resolution, they cannot be applied without first taking into account the full range of their possible humanitarian, social and economic and human rights consequences. It is unacceptable to use them as a means of unfair competition and pressure on “undesirable regimes”. The functions of the existing institution of the Ombudsperson should be expanded to protect the interests of all the entities on the Security Council sanctions list. It is unacceptable to supplement Security Council sanctions with unilateral restrictions, especially those of an extraterritorial nature.
33. We believe that all Member States should join efforts in the fight against terrorism, with the UN playing a central coordinating role. We firmly reject any double standards or hidden agendas in this area. We are convinced that the issue of terrorism should be addressed through the implementation of the relevant universal conventions and protocols, the UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy and relevant UNSC and UNGA resolutions.
Support for the counter-terrorism bodies of the United Nations system, first and foremost the United Nations Office of Counter-Terrorism (UNOCT), remains a priority. We advocate for the expansion of the UNOCT financing from the UN regular budget. We also intend to increase our voluntary contributions to the Office and call on other Member States to do the same. We believe that law enforcement and prevention-oriented initiatives should remain at the core of the UNOCT programme and project activities.
We consider it critical to make greater use of the tools of the specialized subsidiary UNSC bodies, primarily its Counter-Terrorism Committee (CTC), the sanctions committees on ISIL, Al-Qaida and the Taliban Movement. We are committed to a constructive dialogue with regard to the review of the mandate of the CTC Executive Directorate.
We call for ensuring full compliance with UNSC resolutions against the financing of terrorism, as well as with the standards of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF).
We intend to step up efforts to cut off weapons, financial and material support for terrorists, to stop the spread of terrorist propaganda, including through the use of modern information and communication technologies, and to eliminate links between terrorist groups and drug trafficking and other organized crime groups. It is necessary to strengthen cooperation between countries in countering foreign terrorist fighters (FTFs) and bringing them to justice more quickly.
We oppose the dilution of the international legal framework by non-consensual concepts, such as “countering violent extremism“, which allow for the interference in the internal affairs of States and the reorientation of international cooperation on counter-terrorism towards secondary gender and human rights issues. We believe it necessary to enhance efforts to combat various manifestations of extremism, including right-wing radicalism, while countering attempts to use this issue for political purposes and as an excuse to increase anti-Russian sanctions pressure.
34. We strongly oppose the revision and weakening of the current international drug control system, including by legalising all recreational (non-medical) drug use, as well as imposing questionable drug treatment practices as a “universal standard” and promoting drug use as a socially acceptable norm.
We advocate the strengthening of the policy-making role of the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) in the area of drug control. We intend to further continue to actively oppose efforts aimed at creating and institutionalising mechanisms that duplicate the CND work, and at imposing an alternative strategy for addressing the world drug problem bypassing the CND. We emphasize the need for States to strictly comply with the international anti-drug conventions. In view of the re-election to the CND for the period of 2022-2025, the Russian Federation will continue to promote a consistent line on the Commission’s platform as well as in negotiating the resolutions and decisions of the 76th UNGA Session.
We are concerned about the drastic deterioration of the drug situation in Afghanistan and its possible projection into increased smuggling of opiates into Russia and Central Asian countries. In the context of the withdrawal of NATO troops from the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, international and regional anti-drug efforts, such as the Paris Pact, the SCO, the CIS, and the CARICC, are of particular importance. We believe that consistent, effective anti-drug efforts by the Afghan leadership based on the principle of common and shared responsibility of States, are essential for achieving security in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.
35. We support the key role of the United Nations in consolidating international efforts to combat transnational organised crime. We note the importance of an impartial Mechanism for the Review of the Implementation of the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime. We advocate strengthening the legal framework of international cooperation, including the development of new international legal instruments in a number of areas, including cybercrime, asset recovery, extradition and mutual legal assistance.
36. We facilitate the development of the international anti-corruption cooperation, with the UN playing the central and coordinating role, based on the unique universal agreement, the UN Convention against Corruption (CAC). We support the effective functioning of the Mechanism for the Review of the Convention Implementation. We welcome the results of the first UNGA Special Session against Corruption which took place in June 2021. We consider it important that the political declaration of the UNGA Special Session confirmed the existence of gaps in international law governing the return from abroad of assets obtained as a result of corruption offences. We emphasise the need to develop an international legal instrument on asset recovery under the auspices of the UN to complement the UN Convention against Corruption.
37. We support the key role of the UN in consolidating joint efforts to ensure international information security (IIS). They should result in the elaboration and adoption under the UN auspices of universal and comprehensive rules of responsible behaviour of States in information space aimed at preventing conflicts therein and promoting the use of information and communications technologies (ICTs) for peaceful purposes.
We welcome the adoption of the consensus reports of the UN Open-Ended Working Group (OEWG) and the UN Group of Governmental Experts on IIS. We note the unique spirit of the constructive dialogue at these platforms.
During the 76th UNGA Session, we intend to introduce in its First Committee an updated draft resolution on “Developments in the Field of Information and Telecommunications in the Context of International Security” welcoming the successful conclusion of the work of both groups as well as the launch of a new Russia-initiated OEWG on Security in the Use of ICTs and ICTs themselves 2021-2025 (in accordance with UNGA resolution 75/240).
We assume that the new Group will ensure the continuity and consistency of an inclusive and truly democratic negotiation process on IIS under the UN auspices within a single mechanism. We call on all States to take an active part in the work of the OEWG 2021-2025 and contribute to building a fair and equitable IIS system.
In line with the relevant UNGA resolutions adopted at the initiative of the Russian Federation, we advocate for an early drafting, under the auspices of the UN, of an international convention countering the use of information and communications technologies for criminal purposes. The consensus modalities set out while preparing for the negotiation process in the relevant UNGA Ad Hoc Committee enable us to count on constructive and comprehensive participation of the entire international community in developing a universal and effective instrument to counter digital crime.
We call on our partners to support our First Committee draft resolution as well as to unequivocally endorse full implementation of the mandates of the new OEWG and the Ad Hoc Committee.
38. We have consistently advocated strengthening the existing treaty regimes and developing, through consensus, new arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation (ACDNP) regimes. The UN and its multilateral disarmament mechanism should play a central role in this process. We are committed to ensuring the coherence and improving the performance of its three key elements – the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, the Conference on Disarmament and the UN Disarmament Commission – while unconditionally respecting the mandates of these forums.
We deem it necessary to counter any attempts to revise the existing disarmament architecture by means of unilateral coercive measures that bypass the UN Security Council.
The main focus of multilateral efforts and fundamentally new approaches to address the whole range of problems in the field of the ACDNP may be considered at a summit of the permanent members of the UN Security Council which Russia has proposed to hold.
39. We strictly comply with our obligations under the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) and advocate for its early entry into force. We call on the eight states on which the launch of the Treaty depends to sign and/or ratify it without delay. We believe that the key destructive factor here is the position of the United States which is the only state to have officially refused to ratify the Treaty. We expect Washington to reconsider its approach to the CTBT.
40. We support the noble cause of shaping a world free of nuclear weapons. We make a substantial practical contribution to achieving this goal. However, we are convinced there is a need for a balanced approach that takes into account all factors affecting strategic stability, including disruptive US steps aimed at undermining the existing ACDNP architecture. We do not support radical initiatives on introducing an early nuclear weapons ban (namely, the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, TPNW).
41. We consider the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to be the most important international legal instrument for ensuring international security and one of the pillars of the modern world order. Our common task is to prevent the final collapse of the system of international disarmament and arms control agreements that has been developed over decades and the regimes based upon them.
In this regard, we attach primary importance to the viability of the NPT. We call on all States Parties to make every effort at the 10th Review Conference postponed until 2022 because of the new coronavirus pandemic to strengthen the Treaty and to help achieve its goals rather than cause more controversy around it. The ultimate goal is to draft a document that would reaffirm the viability of the Treaty and the willingness of the States Parties to strictly abide by their commitments.
We fully support the work of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as an international organisation that possesses the necessary authority and competence to monitor the observance of the non-proliferation obligations under the NPT through the application of Agency safeguards, which, in its turn, is an important condition for the States to exercise their right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.
We believe that further development of the IAEA safeguards system serves to strengthen the non-proliferation regime, provided that it keeps intact the basic principles of verification – impartiality, technical feasibility, and transparency.
We are concerned about the recent tendency to politicise the IAEA safeguards system. As a result, claims are being made against States based on the ‘very likely/highly likely’ approach while deployment of nuclear weapons belonging to some countries in the territory of other formally non-nuclear States is being ignored.
The IAEA should not be turned into a nuclear disarmament verification tool, as this is neither a statutory purpose nor a function of the Agency. We believe that the participation of the IAEA Secretariat staff in the January 2022 Meeting of States Parties to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) in Vienna is inappropriate.
42. We regard the Conference on the Establishment of a Middle East Zone Free of Nuclear Weapons and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction held in New York on 18-22 November 2019 as a landmark event both in terms of ensuring stability and sustainability in the region and in the context of global efforts towards WMD non-proliferation. We intend to further support the idea of such conferences. We believe that efforts to elaborate a legally binding agreement on creating a WMD-free zone in the Middle East serve the interests of all states in the region.
We hope that the second Conference on the establishment of a WMD-free zone due to be held in New York in November 2020 but postponed because of the COVID-19 pandemic will take place this year, which would allow to kick start a somewhat stagnant process.
43. We are confident that there is still potential for political and diplomatic settlement of the situation arising from the termination of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty) based on Russia’s initiative to ensure predictability and restraint in the missile sphere.
We intend to maintain a unilateral moratorium on the deployment of land-based intermediate-range or shorter-range missiles in regions where no similar US-made weapons would appear. Despite the absence of a constructive response to this initiative on the part of NATO, we still consider a moratorium to be a promising idea that would make it possible to avoid new ‘missile crises’. We propose that the US and their NATO allies take on a similar commitment.
We reaffirm our commitment to the strict compliance with the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (the New START) and welcome its extension for five years without any preconditions – something that the Russian Federation has long and consistently called for. The extension of this Treaty set the stage for resuming a comprehensive dialogue with the United States on future arms control and the maintenance of strategic stability. At the Russian-US summit in Geneva on June 16, 2021 it was agreed to launch such a dialogue in the near future, as reflected in the Joint Statement by the Presidents at the meeting.
We believe that the goal of this engagement is to develop a new ‘security formula’ that takes into account all major factors of strategic stability, covers offensive and defensive nuclear and non-nuclear weapons capable of meeting strategic challenges, as well as the emergence of new technologies and new weapons.
44. We highly commend efforts of the UN Security Council and its ad-hoc 1540 Committee on the WMD non-proliferation. We are determined to engage in a substantive and constructive dialogue in the framework of the comprehensive review of the implementation of UNSC Resolution 1540. We expect that the procedure will result in the confirmation of the 1540 Committee’s current mandate.
45. Russia has initiated the development of important multilateral agreements in the ACDNP area, such as the Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space Treaty (PAROS) and the International Convention on the Suppression of Acts of Chemical and Biological Terrorism. We believe that a constructive dialogue on these issues will provide an opportunity to engage in substantive work (including negotiations) at the UN platform.
The imperative of preserving space for peaceful purposes and taking cooperative practical measures to this end is shared by the vast majority of States. We consider the globalisation of the no-first placement of weapons in outer space initiative to be an important but only interim step on the way towards the conclusion of an international treaty on the prevention of placement of weapons in outer space on the basis of a relevant Chinese-Russian draft treaty on the prevention of the placement of weapons in outer space and the threat or use of force against outer space objects.
At the 76th session of the General Assembly, we will traditionally submit to the First Committee draft resolutions on no first placement of weapons in outer space, transparency and confidence-building measures in space activities and further practical measures to prevent an arms race in outer space.
46. We consider it necessary to continue strengthening the central and coordinating role of the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS). We are against the practice of addressing issues that fall within the competence of the Committee at other non-specialised international fora. We are concerned about the trend towards the consolidation of unilateral approaches in the policies of certain States aimed at establishing of a regime for the research, development and use of space resources, which carries serious risks for international cooperation, including with respect to outer space.
We continue to actively engage in the work of COPUOS to improve the security regime for space operations. We have succeeded in establishing the Working Group on the Long-term Sustainability of Outer Space Activities. The Group’s mandate is to implement the existing and develop new guidelines on long-term sustainability of outer space activities, which is of particular importance against the background of the rapidly changing environment in which space activities take place.
We are against moving the issues traditionally on the COPUOS agenda to parallel platforms, including the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, as part of the concept of the so-called ‘responsible behaviours in outer space’. Neglecting the Committee’s key role with regard to space debris and space traffic management may negatively affect the adoption of balanced consensus decisions in these areas.
We are in favour of the successful completion of efforts to develop the Space-2030 agenda and its implementation plan, with a view to presenting this document at the current session of the General Assembly.
47. We are in favour of strengthening the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention and the Chemical Weapons Convention, the 1925 Geneva Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, as well as the Secretary-General’s Mechanism for Investigation of Alleged Use of Chemical and Biological Weapons.
In order to ensure the effective operation of this UN Secretary-General’s Mechanism, at the 76th session of the General Assembly we will submit a relevant draft resolution to the First Committee.
We come out against attempts by Western states to politicise the work of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in violation of the norms set in the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). We regard as illegitimate their actions aimed at vesting the Technical Secretariat of the OPCW with the function of ‘identifying those responsible’ for the use of chemical weapons (attribution), including the creation of an illegitimate Investigation and Identification Team (IIT). We strongly disagree with its biased conclusions. We also have a whole range of complaints about the work of other OPCW inspection missions in the Syrian Arab Republic which violate the methods of investigation set out in the CWC. We urge the OPCW leadership to take action as soon as possible to rectify this deplorable situation.
We support impartial and highly professional investigations into chemical provocations by anti-government forces in Syria and all manifestations of ‘chemical terrorism’ in the Middle East in strict accordance with the high standards of the CWC.
48. We note the negative impact on international security of yet another destructive step by the United States – the decision to withdraw from the Treaty on Open Skies (OST) under the pretext of alleged violations of the Treaty by Russia. Alongside the US withdrawal from the INF Treaty, as a consequence of which the Treaty ceased to have effect, this step is fully in line with Washington’s policy of destroying the whole range of arms control agreements and causes real damage to the European security system. The United States have upset the balance of rights and obligations of the States Parties to the OST, that is why Russia was forced to take measures to protect its national security interests and begin the procedure of withdrawal from the Treaty (to be completed by 18 December this year).
49. We continue to underline the unique role of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea as a universal instrument creating a comprehensive legal regime for international cooperation of States in the World Ocean. We highly appreciate the work of such conventional mechanisms as the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and the International Seabed Authority. We believe it is vital that they work strictly within their mandates under the Convention avoiding any broad interpretation of the competence granted to them or politicising their decisions.
50. The Russian Federation supports the work of the International Court of Justice(ICJ) as the main judicial body of the United Nations and is ready to assist the creation of conditions enabling its effective and unbiased functioning.
We closely follow the situation around the implementation of the provisions of the UNGA resolution of May 22, 2019 concerning the Chagos Archipelago, adopted in accordance with the relevant advisory opinion of the ICJ. We view the above-mentioned General Assembly decision in the context of the completion of the decolonisation processes.
Elections to the ICJ are planned for the autumn of 2023 at the Security Council and the 78th session of the UNGA. The Russian group in the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) decided to nominate sitting judge K.Gevorgyan for re-election to the ICJ for the period 2024-2033. We are counting on the support of our candidate by the Member States of the Organisation in the forthcoming elections.
51. The Russian Federation facilitates the work of the International Law Commission (ILC) which contributes significantly to the codification and progressive development of international law. We believe that the UN should further build on its most valuable outputs.
In the autumn of 2021, during the 76th session of the UN General Assembly, elections to the ILC are scheduled to take place. The Russian Federation nominated the current member of the Commission, Director of the Legal Department of the MFA of Russia E.Zagaynov, for re-election to the Commission for the period 2023–2027. We hope that the UN Member States will support our candidate in the upcoming elections.
52. The credibility of the International Criminal Court (ICC) is steadily declining. It is becoming more politically biased and one-sided. We note the low quality of its work and the lack of any tangible contribution to conflict settlement.
53. We underline that the mandate of the Residual Mechanism is strictly limited, and it is necessary to complete its activity as soon as possible. We have to acknowledge yet again that the Mechanism inherited the worst practices from the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, which is demonstrated by its consistent anti-Serbian attitudes. We monitor respect for the rights of persons accused and convicted by the Residual Mechanism. We do not consider it expedient at this point to establish new judicial bodies of this kind.
54. We continue to assume the legal nullity of the International, Impartial and Independent Mechanism to Assist in the Investigation and Prosecution of Persons Responsible for the Most Serious Crimes under International Law Committed in the Syrian Arab Republic since March 2011 established by the UN General Assembly acting beyond its authority. We object to the funding of the Mechanism from the UN regular budget and to the Mechanism gaining access to the archives of the OPCW-UN Joint Mechanism.
55. We continue to regard the issue of “the rule of law” with an emphasis on its international dimension, i.e. the primacy of international law, particularly the UN Charter. We continue to oppose attempts to use it to interfere in the internal affairs of sovereign States under the pretext of strengthening the “rule of law” at the national level.
Given the confrontational incorporation of the permanent item “responsibility to protect” (R2P) in the UNGA agenda, we underline the loss of the consensual nature of this concept. We will continue to block attempts to legitimise it.
56. It is States that bear the primary responsibility for promoting and protecting human rights, while the UN executive structures are to play a supporting role. We believe that equal cooperation between States based on the rule of international law, respect for sovereignty and equality of States should be the main principle in the work of the United Nations to promote and protect human rights. It is inadmissible to duplicate the work of the main bodies of the United Nations through unjustified integration of the human rights agenda into all areas of the UN activities. We are against strengthening the link between the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) and the UN Security Council. We oppose attempts to reform the HRC in order to turn it into a quasi-judicial monitoring mechanism.
We consider it unacceptable to include politicised country-specific resolutions and topics outside the scope of their mandate in the agenda of United Nations human rights mechanisms. We condemn the use of human rights issues as a pretext for interfering in the internal affairs of States and undermining the principles of international law. It is in this light that we regard the resolution on the situation of human rights in Crimea, which, since 2016, has been regularly submitted to the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly by the Ukrainian delegation. This document has nothing to do with the actual situation in this region of the Russian Federation. We will vote against this resolution during the 76th session of the UNGA, and we call on our partners to do the same.
The work of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) should become more transparent and accountable to the UN Member States in order to avoid politically motivated approaches to assessing human rights situations in different countries.
We will continue to promote intercivilisational, intercultural and interreligious dialogue and due respect for the diversity of cultures, civilisations, traditions and historical developments in the promotion and protection of human rights.
57. We strongly condemn all forms and manifestations of discrimination. The ban on discrimination enshrined in international human rights instruments is universal and applies to all persons without exception. We see no value added in defining new vulnerable groups (such as members of the LGBT community, human rights activists, bloggers) that allegedly require a special legal protection regime or new categories of rights. Such steps by a number of countries only lead to de-universalization of legal protection regimes and increased politicisation and confrontation within the UN human rights mechanisms.
58. Active practical work in the area of social development aimed at eradicating poverty, promoting social integration, ensuring full employment and decent work for all will facilitate effective implementation of the decisions adopted at the World Summit for Social Development and the 24th special session of the UN General Assembly.
We consider the UN Commission for Social Development to be the main UN coordinating body that develops framework for harmonised actions on general issues of social protection, ensuring equal opportunities for persons with disabilities, problems of ageing population, improving the situation of young people and strengthening the role of the traditional family. We resolutely oppose any initiatives that undermine its role, as well as the calls for its dissolution.
59. The United Nations Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) remains the main intergovernmental platform for discussion of a broad range of issues relating to improvement of the status of women and achieving gender equality in particular. We believe it is important to avoid politicization of these issues or their automatic inclusion into the UN documents focusing on other topics. Special attention in documents on improving the status of women should be devoted to social and economic rights, as well as social protection and support for women and their families.
We believe that gender equality issues should be taken into account in the work of the UN system in a balanced manner, without absolute prioritisation or selective use.
We commend the work of UN Women which should render assistance only within the framework of its mandate, upon request and with the consent of the States concerned. We will continue to interact actively with it within the framework of the Executive Board.
60. We reaffirm the need for strengthening international cooperation in the promotion and protection of the rights of the child on the basis of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the outcome document of the 27th special session of the United Nations General Assembly entitled “A World Fit for Children”. We consider unacceptable attempts by a number of countries to deprive parents and legal guardians of their role in the upbringing of children and the development of their potential, including by granting young children autonomy in their decision-making. Programmes to support the family in its traditional sense, to ensure access to education and healthcare are important for the successful upbringing of children.
We devote close attention to the problem of children in armed conflict. We support the mandate of the Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict and develop cooperation with her, including as part of the programme for repatriation of Russian children from Syria and Iraq.
61. We support discussion at the United Nations General Assembly of the problems of interreligious and intercultural interaction and the development of intercivilisational dialogue, especially within the framework of the Alliance of Civilisations (AoC). We regard the establishment of a culture of peace as an essential prerequisite for peaceful co-existence and global cooperation for the sake of peace and development.
We are actively preparing for holding the World Conference on Intercultural and Interreligious Dialogue (St Petersburg, May 2022).
62. We are ready for the cooperation on the UN agenda issues with all interested relevant non-governmental organizations. Their involvement in the work of the United Nations should take place within the framework of the established practice, which requires the obligatory consent of Member States. We encourage the adequate representation of the Russian non-governmental corps in the activities of the relevant segments, bodies and structures of the United Nations.
63. To overcome the consequences of migration crises affecting individual countries and regions of the world, global efforts are required under the central coordinating role of the United Nations.
We commend the work of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) on ensuring more effective international protection for refugees and other categories of persons under its responsibility. We consider the work of the UNHCR particularly important in situations of major humanitarian crises.
Russia makes a significant contribution to international efforts to improve the situation of refugees, including by accepting forcibly displaced persons from Ukraine and also through programmes for the return of Syrian refugees to their homeland. Each year our country voluntarily contributes some $2 million to the UNHCR budget.
We reaffirm our commitment to the Global Compact on Refugees (GCR) and the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration, which should form the basis of comprehensive long-term cooperation aimed at creating legal channels for migration and countering irregular flows.
Russia took an active part in the first meeting of the Global Refugee Forum. We expect that this platform will help to attract the attention of the international community to the problems of refugees and to consolidate efforts to implement the GCR.
We welcome the strengthening of the UN migration pillar under the coordinating role of the International Organisation for Migration (IOM). We support a comprehensive approach of the UNHCR and IOM to the prevention of the spread of COVID-19 among persons of concern. We are convinced that one of the effective measures to combat the pandemic should be large-scale vaccination of the population, including forcibly displaced persons.
We note the effectiveness of the UNHCR’s work with Syrian refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs). We look forward to the world community pursuing a non-politicized approach in dealing with this issue and providing greater assistance in rebuilding infrastructure and ensuring conditions for their early return.
We appreciate and contribute, including financially, to the UNHCR’s efforts to address the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of the internal Ukrainian crisis. We support the UNHCR programmes aimed at eliminating statelessness, in particular in European countries.
We are interested in the UNHCR facilitating the return of IDPs and refugees to Nagorny Karabakh and the surrounding areas.
64. We consider the Georgian UNGA resolution on the status of internally displaced persons and refugees from Abkhazia and South Ossetia to be counter-productive and to entail the risk of aggravating the situation “on the ground” and further stalling the Geneva discussions, which remain the only negotiation platform enabling direct dialogue between the representatives of Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Georgia. We also note that at a time when the Abkhaz and South Ossetian representatives are deprived of the opportunity to convey their position to the General Assembly because of the systematic refusal of the United States authorities to grant them entry visas, discussions in New York on the topic of “refugees from Abkhazia and South Ossetia” without their direct participation are meaningless.
65. We consistently advocate for the strengthening of UNESCO‘s international standing. We believe that the adaptation of UNESCO’s working methods to the emerging challenges, including in the context of the new coronavirus pandemic, should be in line with the intergovernmental nature of the Organisation and be based on unconditional compliance with the provisions of the UNESCO Constitution, rules of procedure and directives of the decision-making bodies.
We oppose to the artificial integration of human rights issues in UNESCO’s activities in order to avoid duplication of functions of other UN specialised agencies. We aim to increase the effectiveness of the Organisation by depoliticising it and removing from its agenda issues of territorial integrity and sovereignty that do not belong to it.
Russia contributes significantly to UNESCO activities. In 2022, Kazan, the capital of Tatarstan, will host one of the largest and most significant UNESCO events – the 45th Anniversary Session of the World Heritage Committee, which will coincide with the 50th anniversary of the 1972 Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage.
66. We view cooperation in sports and the promotion of sport ideals worldwide as effective ways to foster respect and mutual understanding among nations.
We believe that politicisation of sports and discrimination of athletes, including Paralympians, in the form of collective punishment are unacceptable. We advocate the development of a universal system of international sports cooperation based on the principles of independence and autonomy of sports.
67. In the context of international cooperation to address social and economic consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic, we support intensified efforts to implement the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (the 2030 Agenda) as a holistic and balanced strategy to guide the work of the UN in the social, economic, environmental and related fields. We underline the integrated, non-politicised and indivisible nature of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), with poverty eradication being the key objective.
We support stronger coordination between the UNGA and ECOSOC, including through the dialogue platform of the High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development (HLPF). The HLPF is designed to serve as a forum that brings together all stakeholders, including members of the business community (not only NGOs), to review the progress made in the implementation of the 2030 Agenda at the global level. Russia’s first Voluntary National Review on the implementation of the SDGs presented in 2020 has been a significant contribution to these efforts.
We promote a balanced approach in the energy sector with a focus on ensuring universal access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy sources in line with SDG 7. We recognise the urgent need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, while believing that it should be fulfilled not only through the transition to renewable energy sources but also through the introduction of advanced low-carbon technologies in the use of all types of energy sources, including fossil fuels. In this context, we advocate increased use of natural gas as the most environmentally acceptable fossil fuel, as well as the recognition of nuclear power and hydropower as clean energy sources due to the absence of a carbon footprint. In this spirit, we intend to ensure Russia’s participation in the High-Level Dialogue on Energy in September 2021.
68. We will continue to uphold the basic parameters for international humanitarian assistance outlined in UNGA resolution 46/182 and other decisions of the General Assembly and ECOSOC. We will oppose revision of fundamental principles, in particular the respect for the sovereignty of an affected state and the need to obtain its consent for assistance. We will continue to urge UN humanitarian agencies to act as “honest brokers” and base their work on carefully verified data about the humanitarian situation “on the ground”.
We are concerned about the worsening of humanitarian crises triggered by the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. As humanitarian needs grow considerably, we believe it crucial to avoid politicising humanitarian assistance.
69. We condemn individual countries’ practice of imposing unilateral coercive measures contrary to the United Nations Charter and international law. We therefore support the idea of joining efforts of sanctioned countries in line with the Russian President’s initiative to create sanctions-free “green corridors” to provide countries with access to medicines and essential goods.
70. We call for accelerated implementation of the Addis-Ababa Action Agenda decisions on financing for development in order to mobilise and make effective use of resources to achieve the SDGs.
We support the principle of prioritising the interests of international development assistance recipients. We offer assistance to interested countries based on a de-politicised approach, promoting domestic innovation and expertise.
We recognise the importance of reaching international consensus on global taxation, in particular in the fight against tax evasion. We support the increased intergovernmental cooperation in curbing illicit financial flows and repatriation of income generated from illegal activities.
71. We oppose attempts by individual countries to reduce socio-economic development solely to the achievement of environmental protection goals, namely climate change. We see such a one-sided position as an indication of unfair competition and trade protectionism, which are inconsistent with the World Trade Organisation (WTO) principles of a universal, open, non-discriminatory multilateral trading system.
72. We welcome the further strengthening of the work of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat) to achieve sustainable development of the United Nations.
We support the consolidation of UNEP’s role as the key universal intergovernmental platform establishing the integrated global environmental agenda.
We advocate greater efficiency and stronger financial discipline within UN-Habitat as part of the Programme’s structural reform implemented in accordance with resolution 73/239 of the General Assembly.
We stress the need for strict adherence to the principle of equitable geographical representation in the staffing of UNEP and UN-Habitat and the inadmissibility of politicisation of these programmes’ mandates.
73. We stand for the continued leadership of the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO), the UN World Food Programme (WFP) and the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) in coordinating international efforts to eliminate hunger, improve nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture. We will encourage these Rome-based organisations to engage in a closer inter-agency cooperation within the UN system in addressing these issues.
In practical terms, we are actively involved in preparations for the 2021 UN Food Systems Summit. We expect it to deliver a comprehensive analysis of optimal agri-food chain models to help eradicate hunger and improve food security, including the provision of healthy food for the population. We believe that commonly agreed and universally supported sectoral approaches and proposals should be reflected in the Summit outcome documents in a balanced way. We hope that the upcoming event will set the course for the transformation of global food systems, particularly in the context of overcoming the consequences of the new coronavirus pandemic, and give further impetus to the implementation of the 2030 Agenda.
We pay careful attention to preventing the risk of a food crisis, namely in view of the negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. We will continue to provide humanitarian food aid to countries most in need, first of all to those of the former Soviet Union, as well as in Africa and Latin America.
74. We attach great importance to the work carried out by the UNGA to support the multilateral efforts in combating the COVID-19 pandemic and overcoming its impact. We advocate a universal, equitable, fair and unhindered access to medical technologies as well as safe, high-quality, effective and affordable vaccines and medicines for the new coronavirus infection.
We consider increasing global preparedness and response capacity for health emergencies to be a priority task. We are ready for a constructive dialogue with all partners in the framework of the relevant formats. Yet we believe that the World Health Organisation (WHO) should continue to be the main forum for discussing global health issues.
We consistently support WHO as the focal point for the international human health cooperation. We call for enhancing the efficiency of its work through increased transparency and accountability to Member States.
75. We will further strengthen the multi-stakeholder partnership for disaster risk reduction under the Sendai Framework 2015–2030. Amid the ongoing pandemic, we believe that special attention should be paid to building States’ capacity to respond to emergencies, including in health care.
76. We seek to keep down the growth of the UN regular programme budget for 2022, as well as estimates for peacekeeping operations and the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals. We propose targeted and justified reductions in requested resources. Any requests for additional funding should first undergo careful internal scrutiny. At the same time, the Secretariat should step up its efforts to improve the efficiency of its working methods in order to minimise the associated costs of achieving UN’s objectives. We insist on stronger accountability, strict budgetary discipline and improved transparency in the Secretariat’s work.
77. Ensuring parity among the six official UN languages in conference services and information and communication activities remains one of the priorities in our interaction with the Organisation’s Secretariat. The principle of multilingualism should be given primary consideration when implementing all media projects and information campaigns as well as allocating financial and human resources to the language services of the UN Secretariat.
Benjamin Netanyahu had never lost a media battle that was focused on international, ‘Israeli’, and domestic incitement against the resistance in Lebanon, in such a short period of time. He never saw it coming.
The problem isn’t that the enemy’s prime minister fell victim to his traditional showmanship. Rather, it was a professional mistake of strategic dimensions committed by one or both sides: Either Netanyahu himself needed an information, even a false one, to fuel incitement against Hezbollah in his speech at the United Nations, or the intelligence service was the one that committed a serious professional mistake when it presented the prime minister with what was supposed to be a “final piece of information” regarding a facility Netanyahu proudly claimed had been seized.
One of the reasons for the mistake by the intelligence apparatus may stem from the political leadership’s insistence on the need for information with specific characteristics that serve a clear goal in the context of the incitement policy.
In a matter of hours, ‘Israel’ received a media blow no less significant than the one that accompanied the bombing of the Sa’ar battleship at sea during the July 2006 war, when the Hezbollah Secretary General uttered his famous phrase “watch it burn.”
The information was handed to everyone, especially the media outlets that are allied with ‘Israel’, in both Lebanon and abroad, which didn’t have enough time to play with what Netanyahu said.
Hezbollah dealt a loud political, propaganda, and intelligence blow to the enemy’s entity, with its political and intelligence apparatuses. In more direct terms, the live broadcast featuring the Secretary General of Hezbollah, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, dealt the ‘Israeli’ premier a resounding slap, which will echo and perhaps have repercussions within the ‘Israeli’ intelligence establishment and contribute to undermining the credibility of the head of the pyramid in Tel Aviv.
It will also lead to a blame game over the failure at a sensitive time internally, as well as in the context of the conflict with Hezbollah. Of course, the repercussions of the slap inside the intelligence establishment may not go out publically, but it will represent an experience to draw lessons from and try to answer specific questions: Where did the intelligence make mistakes, where did Netanyahu make a mistake, and how can you weave the false information in subsequent positions?
The successful step taken by Hezbollah in undermining Netanyahu’s plan to exploit the UN platform represents a blow to the propaganda strategy that ‘Israel’ is pursuing in confronting Hezbollah. This blow has both intelligence and political dimensions. What exacerbates these dimensions is the fact that the tools for their implementation were neither soldiers in the army, nor a minister, nor an administrative official, nor a distinguished expert. Rather, it was the whole ‘state’, its top hierarchy, and from the highest international forum regarding a very sensitive issue.
Before the Beirut Port explosion on August 4, ‘Israel’ was pursuing a policy of inciting the resistance’s ecosystem and the entire Lebanese population against it and its weapons.
‘Israel’ saw in the incident as an ideal opportunity that could serve as solid ground and a driving force to take the incitement plan against the resistance to new horizons. Hence, it adopted a propaganda policy based on exploiting the fears of the Lebanese people of a recurring disaster. Netanyahu did not hide his goal. Rather, he directly addressed, during his speech before the United Nations, the residents of the Jnah area in Beirut’s southern suburbs, and the rest of the Lebanese, telling them to rise up against Hezbollah because “if this storage explodes, another tragedy will happen. And to the Lebanese citizens … you should ask them to dismantle these warehouses.”
On the other hand, Hezbollah took a two-way step aimed at exposing Netanyahu’s lies and blocking the way for him and his intelligence to benefit from them later. Sayyed Nasrallah announced that journalists are invited immediately to visit the place that Netanyahu mentioned, in order to eradicate the possibility of any subsequent allegations about the facility being evacuated.
In parallel, he was keen to block the road for the ‘Israeli’ intelligence [specifically] by affirming that this step “does not bind us to the principle that whenever Netanyahu talks about a place, we should call the media to check it out.”
The importance of this move is essential, as it’s aimed at preventing ‘Israel’ from transforming every allegation that a place contains missile stores into an opportunity to expose the resistance and Lebanon at the security level.
At the level of messages:
Hezbollah scored a qualitative achievement in the battle of awareness and public opinion. It is one of the most important arenas and axes of the ongoing conflict in Lebanon where internal and external parties try to distort the image of the resistance and its weapons.
It also undermined Netanyahu’s credibility in the battle for consciousness, as he was betting that this station would represent a qualitative asset on which to build his subsequent steps. He considers this one of the most important aspects in this type of battle. Instead of undermining the credibility of the resistance and inciting the Lebanese people against it, Netanyahu’s image and credibility were undermined. It can be said that any subsequent allegations of this kind will from now be questioned and neglected by large sectors of the public opinion in Lebanon and in the entity as well.
Hezbollah dealt a severe blow to the ‘Israeli’ intelligence, which was supposed to have provided Netanyahu with false and misleading information. It seems that the latter with its security and political staff were depending on the assumption that Hezbollah would either not invite the media to this place, in keeping with its policy of securely fortifying the resistance, or it will do so at a later time. Then Netanyahu and his apparatus, as it happened previously, could claim that Hezbollah emptied the site of the missiles.
Hezbollah provided tangible evidence to the public opinion that ‘Israel’s’ goal is nothing but incitement against the resistance, which was what Netanyahu called for during his speech [calling on the residents of Jnah to rise up], based on lies and misinformation. This station will remain engraved in the memory of the public as a witness and an indication of what will come next in terms of allegations.
لم يسبق أن خسر بنيامين نتنياهو، في ساعات قليلة، معركة إعلامية تشكّل محور سياسة التحريض الدولي والاسرائيلي والمحلي على المقاومة في لبنان. ولم يخطر في باله للحظة أن يحصل ما حصل. المشكلة ليست في كون رئيس وزراء العدو وقع ضحية ألاعيبه الاستعراضية التقليدية، بل تكمن في خطأ مهني ذي أبعاد استراتيجية ارتكبه أحد طرفين أو كلاهما: إما نتنياهو نفسه الذي كان يحتاج الى معلومة ولو كاذبة للتحريض على حزب الله في كلمته في الامم المتحدة، أو جهاز الاستخبارات الذي ارتكب خطأ مهنياً خطيراً، عندما قدم إلى رئيس حكومة بلاده ما كان يفترض أنه «معلومة محسومة»، حيال منشأة قال نتنياهو، باعتزاز، إنه تم ضبطها. وقد يكون من أسباب وقوع الجهاز في هذا الخطأ إلحاح القيادة السياسية على ضرورة توفير معلومة ذات مواصفات محددة، تخدم هدفاً مرسوماً في سياق سياسة التحريض.
في ساعات قليلة، تلقّت إسرائيل ضربة إعلامية لا تقل حجماً عن الضربة التي رافقت قصف البارجة «ساعر» في عرض البحر خلال حرب تموز 2006، عندما نطق الأمين العام لحزب الله جملته الشهيرة «انظروا اليها تحترق».
(أ ف ب ) أُسقط في أيدي الجميع، خصوصاً وسائل الاعلام الحليفة لإسرائيل في لبنان وخارجه، والتي لم تجد فسحة زمنية للعب على ما قاله نتنياهو. وجّه حزب الله ضربة سياسية دعائية استخبارية مدوّية لكيان العدو، بجهازيه السياسي والاستخباري. وبتعبير أكثر مباشرة، وجّه الأمين العام لحزب الله السيد حسن نصر الله، في بث مباشر على الهواء، صفعة مدوية لرئيس وزراء العدو ستترك صداها، وربما تداعياتها، داخل المؤسسة الاستخبارية الاسرائيلية، وستُسهم في تقويض مصداقية رأس الهرم في تل أبيب، وستؤدي الى تقاذف المسؤوليات عن الفشل في توقيت حساس داخلياً، وكذلك في سياق الصراع مع حزب الله. بالطبع، قد لا تخرج تداعيات الصفعة داخل المؤسسة الاستخبارية الى العلن، إلا أنها ستمثّل محطة لاستخلاص العبر ومحاولة الاجابة عن أسئلة محددة: أين أخطأت الاستخبارات وأين أخطأ نتنياهو، وكيف يمكن حبك المعلومة الكاذبة في المحطات اللاحقة؟
الخطوة الناجحة التي أقدم عليها حزب الله في تقويض خطة نتنياهو لاستغلال منبر الامم المتحدة، مثّلت ضربة ذات أبعاد استخبارية وسياسية، وللاستراتيجية الدعائية التي تنتهجها إسرائيل في مواجهة الحزب. وما يُفاقم من هذه الأبعاد أن أدوات تنفيذها لم تكن جنوداً في الجيش ولا وزيراً ولا مسؤولاً إدارياً، ولا خبيراً مرموقاً، بل الدولة بكيانها، من خلال رأس هرمها، ومن على أعلى منبر دولي، وفي قضية شديدة الحساسية.
ما قبل انفجار المرفأ في 4 آب، كانت إسرائيل تنتهج سياسة تحريض البيئة الحاضنة للمقاومة ومجمل الشعب اللبناني عليها وعلى سلاحها. ورأت اسرائيل في الحادثة فرصة مثالية يمكن أن تمثّل أرضية صلبة وقوة دفع للمخطط التحريضي ضد المقاومة نحو آفاق جديدة. فاعتمدت سياسة دعائية تستند الى استغلال مخاوف اللبنانيين من تكرار الكارثة، ولم يُخفِ نتنياهو هدفه من هذا التحريض، بل توجه بشكل مباشر، خلال كلمته أمام الامم المتحدة، الى سكان منطقة الجناح في الضاحية الجنوبية والى سائر اللبنانيين للانتفاض ضد حزب الله، لأنه «إذا انفجر هذا المخزن فستقع مأساة أخرى. وللمواطنين اللبنانيين… عليكم مطالبتهم بتفكيك هذه المخازن».
في المقابل، أقدم حزب الله على خطوة مركبة وفي اتجاهين، تهدف الى كشف كذب نتنياهو وقطع الطريق عليه وعلى استخباراته للاستفادة منها لاحقاً. فأعلن السيد نصر الله أن الاعلاميين مدعوون فوراً لزيارة المكان الذي حدده نتنياهو لقطع الطريق على أي مزاعم لاحقة بتفريغ المنشأة، وفي الموازاة حرص على قطع الطريق على الاستخبارات الاسرائيلية (تحديداً) بتأكيد أن هذه الخطوة «لا تلزمنا بمبدأ أنه كلما تحدث نتنياهو عن مكان ينبغي علينا دعوة الاعلاميين اليه». أهمية هذا القيد في هذه المحطة جوهري جداً، لكونه يهدف الى منع إسرائيل من تحويل كل ادّعاء عن مكان بأنه يحتوي على مخازن صواريخ الى فرصة لكشف المقاومة ولبنان أمنياً.
بكلمات قليلة، وخلال ساعات، خسر نتنياهو معركة إعلامية كبرى في سياق سياسة التحريض على المقاومة
على مستوى الرسائل: حقق حزب الله إنجازاً نوعياً في معركة الوعي والرأي العام. وهي إحدى أهم ساحات ومحاور الصراع القائم في لبنان. حيث تحاول جهات داخلية وخارجية تشويه صورة المقاومة وسلاحها، وهو قوَّض مصداقية نتنياهو في سياق المعركة على الوعي، إذ كان يراهن على أن تمثّل هذه المحطة رصيداً نوعياً يبني عليه خطواته اللاحقة. وهي من أهم ما يستند اليه هذا النوع من المعارك. فبدلاً من المس بمصداقية المقاومة وتحريض الشعب اللبناني عليها، تقوّضت صورة نتنياهو ومصداقيته. ويمكن القول إن أي مزاعم لاحقة من هذا النوع، ستكون منذ الآن موضع تشكيك وإهمال لدى قطاعات واسعة من الرأي العام في لبنان وكيان العدو ايضاً.
وجّه حزب الله ضربة قاسية الى استخبارات اسرائيل التي يفترض أنها زوّدت نتنياهو بمعلومات خاطئة ومضللة. ويبدو أن الأخير وطاقمه الأمني والسياسي، كانوا يستندون الى فرضية أن حزب الله إما أنه لن يدعو الاعلاميين الى هذا المكان، كما هي سياسته في تحصين المقاومة أمنياً، أو أنه سيفعل ذلك في وقت لاحق. وعندها يمكن لنتنياهو وأجهزته، كما حصل سابقاً، زعم أن حزب الله أفرغ المكان من الصواريخ.
قدّم حزب الله دليلاً ملموساً للرأي العام على أن هدف إسرائيل ليس إلا التحريض على المقاومة، وهو ما نطق به نتنياهو خلال الكلمة (دعوة سكان الجناح إلى الانتفاض)، مستندة الى كمّ هائل من الأكاذيب وعمليات التضليل. وهو ما يفرض أن تبقى هذه المحطة محفورة في ذاكرة الرأي العام كشاهد ومؤشر على ما سيأتي لاحقاً من مزاعم وادعاءات.
It took one minute for President Trump to introduce a virus at the virtual 75th UN General Assembly, blasting “the nation which unleashed this plague onto the world”.
And then it all went downhill.
Even as Trump was essentially delivering a campaign speech and could not care less about the multilateral UN, at least the picture was clear enough for all the socially distant “international community” to see.
Here is President Xi’s full statement. And here is President Putin’s full statement. And here’s the geopolitical chessboard, once again; it’s the “indispensable nation” versus the Russia-China strategic partnership.
As he stressed the importance of the UN, Xi could not be more explicit that no nation has the right to control the destiny of others: “Even less should one be allowed to do whatever it likes and be the hegemon, bully, or boss of the world .”
The US ruling class obviously won’t take this act of defiance lying down. The full spectrum of Hybrid War techniques will continue to be relentlessly turbo-charged against China, coupled with rampant Sinophobia, even as it dawns on many Dr. Strangelove quarters that the only way to really “deter” China would be Hot War.
Alas, the Pentagon is overstretched – Syria, Iran, Venezuela, South China Sea. And every analyst knows about China’s cyber warfare capabilities, integrated aerial defense systems, and carrier-killer Dongfeng missiles.
For perspective, it’s always very instructive to compare military expenditure. Last year, China spent $261 billion while the US spent $732 billion (38% of the global total).
Rhetoric, at least for the moment, prevails. The key talking point, incessantly hammered, is always about China as an existential threat to the “free world”, even as the myriad declinations of what was once Obama’s “pivot to Asia” not so subtly accrue the manufacture of consent for a future war.
This report by the Qiao Collective neatly identifies the process: “We call it Sinophobia, Inc. – an information industrial complex where Western state funding, billion dollar weapons manufacturers, and right-wing think tanks coalesce and operate in sync to flood the media with messages that China is public enemy number one. Armed with state funding and weapons industry sponsors, this handful of influential think tanks are setting the terms of the New Cold War on China. The same media ecosystem that greased the wheels of perpetual war towards disastrous intervention in the Middle East is now busy manufacturing consent for conflict with China.”
That “US military edge”
The demonization of China, infused with blatant racism and rabid anti-communism, is displayed across a full, multicolored palette: Hong Kong, Xinjiang (“concentration camps), Tibet (“forced labor”), Taiwan, “China virus”; the Belt and Road’s “debt trap”.
The trade war runs in parallel – glaring evidence of how “socialism with Chinese characteristics” is beating Western capitalism at its own high-tech game. Thus the sanctioning of over 150 companies that manufacture chips for Huawei and ZTE, or the attempt to ruin TikTok’s business in the US (“But you can’t rob it and turn it into a US baby”, as Global Times editor-in-chief Hu Xijin tweeted).
Still, SMIC (Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation), China’s top chip company, which recently profited from a $7.5 billion IPO in Shanghai, sooner or later may jump ahead of US chip manufacturers.
On the military front, “maximum pressure” on China’s eastern rim proceeds unabated – from the revival of the Quad to a scramble to boost the Indo-Pacific strategy.
Think Tankland is essential in coordinating the whole process, via for instance the Center for Strategic & International Studies, with “corporation and trade association donors” featuring usual suspects such as Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Dynamics and Northrop Grumman.
So here we have what Ray McGovern brilliantly describes as MICIMATT – the Military-Industrial-Congressional-Intelligence-Media-Academia-Think-Tank complex – as the comptrollers of Sinophobia Inc.
Assuming there would be a Dem victory in November, nothing will change. The next Pentagon head will probably be Michele Flournoy, former Undersecretary of Defense for Policy (2009-2012) and co-founder of the Center for a New American Security, which is big on both the “China challenge” and the “North Korean threat”. Flournoy is all about boosting the “U.S. military’s edge” in Asia.
So what is China doing?
China’s top foreign policy principle is to advance a “community of shared future for mankind”. That is written in the constitution, and implies that Cold War 2.0 is an imposition from foreign actors.
China’s top three priorities post-Covid-19 are to finally eradicate poverty; solidify the vast domestic market; and be back in full force to trade/investment across the Global South.
China’s “existential threat” is also symbolized by the drive to implement a non-Western trade and investment system, including everything from the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and the Silk Road Fund to trade bypassing the US dollar.
A Harvard Kennedy School report at least tried to understand how Chinese “authoritarian resilience” appeals domestically. The report found out that the CCP actually benefitted from increased popular support from 2003 to 2016, reaching an astonishing 93%, essentially due to social welfare programs and the battle against corruption.
By contrast, when we have a MICCIMAT investing in Perpetual War – or “Long War” (Pentagon terminology since 2001) – instead of health, education and infrastructure upgrading, what’s left is a classic wag the dog. Sinophobia is perfect to blame the abysmal response to Covid-19, the extinction of small businesses and the looming New Great Depression on the Chinese “existential threat”.
The whole process has nothing to do with “moral defeat” and complaining that “we risk losing the competition and endangering the world”.
The world is not “endangered” because at least vast swathes of the Global South are fully aware that the much-ballyhooed “rules-based international order” is nothing but a quite appealing euphemism for Pax Americana – or Exceptionalism. What was designed by Washington for post-WWII, the Cold War and the “unilateral moment” does not apply anymore.
Bye, bye Mackinder
As President Putin has made it very clear over and over again, the US is no longer “agreement capable” . As for the “rules-based international order”, at best is a euphemism for privately controlled financial capitalism on a global scale.
The Russia-China strategic partnership has made it very clear, over and over again, that against NATO and Quad expansion their project hinges on Eurasia-wide trade, development and diplomatic integration.
Unlike the case from the 16th century to the last decades of the 20th century, now the initiative is not coming from the West, but from East Asia (that’s the beauty of “initiative” incorporated to the BRI acronym).
Enter continental corridors and axes of development traversing Southeast Asia, Central Asia, the Indian Ocean, Southwest Asia and Russia all the way to Europe, coupled with a Maritime Silk Road across the South Asian rimland.
For the very first time in its millenary history, China is able to match ultra-dynamic political and economic expansion both overland and across the seas. This reaches way beyond the short era of the Zheng He maritime expeditions during the Ming dynasty in the early 15th century.
No wonder the West, and especially the Hegemon, simply cannot comprehend the geopolitical enormity of it all. And that’s why we have so much Sinophobia, so many Hybrid War techniques deployed to snuff out the “threat”.
Eurasia, in the recent past, was either a Western colony, or a Soviet domain. Now, it stands on the verge of finally getting rid of Mackinder, Mahan and Spykman scenarios, as the heartland and the rimland progressively and inexorably integrate, on their own terms, all the way to the middle of the 21st century.
Algerian President Abdelmadjid Tebboune. (Photo: File)
The right of the Palestinian people to have a state with Jerusalem as its capital is not subject to bargain, the Algerian president said on Wednesday, Anadolu reports.
Abdelmadjid Tebboune’s remarks came at a speech he delivered at the 75th UN General Assembly via video link.
“The Palestinian cause remains a sacred cause for Algeria and its people,” Tebboune said.
— PLO Department of International Relations (@PalestinePDP) September 23, 2020
He went on to express firm support for the Palestinian people and their “inalienable” right to establish their independent, sovereign state with Jerusalem as its capital.
On Sept. 15, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain signed US-brokered normalization agreements with Israel at the White House; ignoring the Palestinian rejection. Yet, Riyadh has not declared its rejection or support for these agreements.
🗣️ "The Palestinian cause for us is sacred" – President Abdelmadjid Tebboune
President Abdelmadjid Tebboune says #Algeria 🇩🇿 will not normalize ties with Israel and will not give its blessings to other Arab countries that want to.
Tebboune also stressed in his speech the need to accelerate a comprehensive UN reform to improve its performance and to ensure fair representation of the African continent in the Security Council in line with the Sirte Declaration.
The African Union summit held in Sirte, Libya, in 2005 came out with the Sirte Declaration calling for a comprehensive UN reform and ensuring representation of the continent in the Security Council with two permanent and five non-permanent seats.
Now that the excitement of all the major Heads of Countries virtually speaking at the UNGA is over, we can come to initial conclusions. The theme of this gathering was to investigate the UN itself, and to position it to be a better global gathering place where internal relations can be discussed, problems solved and the work of multi-polarity between nations can continue. President Putin gave a serious statesman speech without any fireworks, stating why the UN is important and calmly outlining the conditions in our world today, which actions should take priority and what the Russian focus is in the medium and long terms. His gift to the UN and staff is a free SputnikV Vaccine. Chairman Xi did the same and also came bearing gifts, putting some money where their mouth’s are in essence. Here is the transcript and this quote stands out: (Note my bolded sentence).
“Since the start of this year, we, the 1.4 billion Chinese, undaunted by the strike of COVID-19, and with the government and the people united as one, have made all-out efforts to control the virus and speedily restore life and economy to normalcy. We have every confidence to achieve our goals within the set time frame, that is, to finish the building of a moderately prosperous society in all respects, lift out of poverty all rural residents living below the current poverty line, and meet ten years ahead of schedule the poverty eradication target set out in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
China is the largest developing country in the world, a country that is committed to peaceful, open, cooperative and common development. We will never seek hegemony, expansion, or sphere of influence. We have no intention to fight either a Cold War or a hot war with any country. We will continue to narrow differences and resolve disputes with others through dialogue and negotiation. We do not seek to develop only ourselves or engage in a zero-sum game. We will not pursue development behind closed doors. Rather, we aim to foster, over time, a new development paradigm with domestic circulation as the mainstay and domestic and international circulations reinforcing each other. This will create more space for China’s economic development and add impetus to global economic recovery and growth.
China will continue to work as a builder of global peace, a contributor to global development and a defender of international order. To support the UN in playing its central role in international affairs, I hereby announce the following steps to be taken by China:
— China will provide another US$50 million to the UN COVID-19 Global Humanitarian Response Plan.
— China will provide US$50 million to the China-FAO South-South Cooperation Trust Fund (Phase III).
— China will extend the Peace and Development Trust Fund between the UN and China by five years after it expires in 2025.
— China will set up a UN Global Geospatial Knowledge and Innovation Center and an International Research Center of Big Data for Sustainable Development Goals to facilitate the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.”
So why is it that the Chinese government seemingly fails to convince the western public that China is not their enemy? Alternatively stated, why is it that the western countries are successful in portraying China as their enemy? The answer is non-complicated at a first look.
At present, 90% of Americans learn about China through Western media, so it’s hard for the Chinese Government to convince Americans of anything.
American media are even more tightly controlled than Chinese media and far less trustworthy, says the American Press Institute, “Just six percent of Americans say they have a lot of confidence in the media, putting the news industry about equal to Congress and well below the public’s view of other institutions”.
Americans don’t trust what their media tell them, but they don’t have other sources of information, either.
Joey Yu says: (February 22) —”The average American also has never left the United States. Never seen another country unless it’s through the media, and what the media shows them is probably outdated.” • And nearly all Western media has the constant anti-Chinese political refrain which has brainwashed many even highly educated American and British professionals. I have given up trying to correct such people because I would lose their friendship if I continue to do that. But that brainwashing rankles.
First we had President Trump’s speech at the UNGA, which can only be categorized as a blistering and outright attack on China, well outside of the theme set for this meeting, while pretending to be the ‘Peaceful Nation’. The Chinese commentary was immediate and devastating. I pulled these few comments describing President Trump’s speech out of just one of the Chinese commentaries:
Discriminatory, did the US President come to the UN for a quarrel, vulgar, full of loopholes, fooling only the American public, undisguised attempt at a new cold war, a destroyer, a creator of tensions, a hysterical attack that violated the diplomatic etiquette a top leader is supposed to have, pays no heed to diplomacy, they believe power is everything, they want the agenda of the international community to serve US politics, and the UN General Assembly be turned into Trump’s presidential campaign, the US has performed so poorly in handling domestic affairs that reforms could barely be advanced, it has to pass the buck to digest the domestic anger.
And then finally: “This is the sign of stagnation and the decline of a major power. It’s hoped the US government will not go further in this direction, which will only end up deceiving itself.”
With that as a backdrop, this selection from Godfree’s Here Comes China Newsletter focuses on
vaccines,
how the ‘scary social credit system’ actually works,
a purported whistle blower,
Pakistan and Belt and Road
Chinese foreign investment.
While in the western countries there is a concerted effort against vaccines, and a tremendous amount of backlash from citizens against vaccines for Covid-19 (and I don’t blame them at all given who is developing these for the western world), in China the situation is completely different:
China will not need a sweeping coronavirus vaccination programme because the pathogen is effectively under control in the country – at least for now. Gao Fu, director of the Chinese Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CCDC), said that large-scale vaccination would only be needed if there was a major outbreak, like the one in Wuhan in February. “This is an issue of balancing risk and return”.[MORE]
We’ve seen endless propaganda with visions of brutal control of the citizens via the so-called Social Credit System in China. Let’s take a look at how it really works.
The chairman of China’s embattled HNA Group Co. Ltd. was restricted from excessive spending on travel, golf and other activities by a court as debt woes continue rattling the once high-flying conglomerate. A district court in Xi’an, northwest China’s Shaanxi province, issued orders to limit spending by HNA and its 67-year-old co-founder and Chairman Chen Feng, a court document database showed Wednesday. As the legal representative of HNA, Chen will be restricted from taking flights, buying train tickets that are pricier than economy class, accommodations in luxury hotels, spending on entertainment such as golf and leisure trips, buying property and nonessential vehicles, and investing in high-yield wealth management products, according to the orders. The Xi’an court said it issued the orders in a debt dispute filed against HNA in August. [MORE]
It seems absolutely fine to me that if someone mismanaged his large business and lived a luxury life, that he should be brought back to a normal lifestyle while fixing his business.
We`ve all heard of the Chinese Virologist that is being trotted out on most western mainstream media, saying that China developed the Covid-19 virus in a lab and she was told to stay silent. Yet, I bet very few have seen the Chinese commentary on this:
Chinese defector’s shocking virus claim: Dr Li, a formerly a specialist at Hong Kong’s School of Public Health, said her supervisor first asked her to investigate a new “SARS-like” virus in Wuhan – but that her efforts were later stifled. She said she reported back that cases appeared to be rising exponentially but was told to “keep silent and be careful”. “’We will get in trouble and we’ll be disappeared’,” her supervisor reportedly said. Dr Li travelled to the US in late April before speaking out, saying she had to leave Hong Kong because she “knows how [China] treat whistleblowers”. [MORE]
A press release from the University of Hong Kong (HKU) denied her claim and stated that: “Dr Yan never conducted any research on human-to-human transmission of the novel coronavirus at HKU during December 2019 and January 2020. We further observe that what she might have emphasised in the reported interview has no scientific basis but resembles hearsay.” The director of HKU’s School of Public Health, Keiji Fukuda, said in an internal memo to staff that none of the researchers named by Yan were involved in any cover-up or “secret research”.[MORE]
Pakistan and China signed the Development Agreement for the first China Pakistan Economic Corridor’s (CPEC) Rashakai Special Economic Zone (SEZ) Monday. Chairman Atif R. Bokhari said sufficient headway has been made on this front and the zones are now gearing up for business. “Pakistan’s proximity with China will allow these SEZs to foster economic interdependence for mutual economic advantage,” he added. [MORE]
In Pakistan, the Belt and Road project is everywhere. A dinner at the Islamabad Club quickly turns into a reminiscence of different visits to China. After a lecture in Lahore, a group of young men from Baluchistan want to know if China’s monumental economic initiative will develop their region — or cause it to lose its identity. The acronym for the corridor linking China and Pakistan, CPEC, can be heard in hotel lobbies and restaurants; it stands out for those who cannot understand Urdu. There are young people who have come of age since the beginning of the initiative and for whom it constitutes the only possible horizon for professional advancement. Earlier this year, I spent three weeks traveling in Pakistan, the crown jewel of the Belt and Road project, the country where the initiative first took root and therefore the most plausible candidate for the place where its future can be surmised and understood.
So central is the Belt and Road to Pakistani politics that it should not be thought of as a specific enterprise. Rather, it provides the overarching framework for every economic policy and project. In short, the initiative is something that should feel very familiar to policymakers in Brussels and other European capitals.
In my discussions with economic authorities and think tanks, it quickly became obvious that the main debate in Pakistan today is about the best way to adapt policy decisions and reforms to the Belt and Road framework. The Belt and Road can thus be compared to the European Union and the role it played for countries in Central and Eastern Europe after the 2004 and 2007 enlargements. Which decisions should these countries make in order to better occupy their place within the given political and economic order?
That many in the West still think of the Belt and Road purely in terms of infrastructure is something I find deeply perplexing. In the project’s inaugural speech that Chinese President Xi Jinping delivered in Astana in 2013, infrastructure was no more than one of the five pillars of the Belt and Road — and very obviously not more than an ancillary one. The real action was clearly elsewhere.
At the time of Xi was giving his speech in Astana, it was common to hear from different officials and intellectuals in Beijing that the Belt and Road was meant to be completed in 2049, around the time of the first centennial of the new China. Last year, while living in Beijing, I started hearing that the temporal horizon was even longer. Many spoke openly of a 100-year project. This is not the time-scale of an infrastructure plan. The Marshall Plan was concluded in just a few years. Interestingly, in Pakistan this idea — that the Belt and Road is a project of economic and technological development, culminating in a new global political and economic order — is clearly understood. By Bruno Maçães, a former Europe minister for Portugal, is a senior adviser at Flint Global in London and the author most recently of “History Has Begun: The Birth of a New America” (Hurst, 2020). The paperback edition of his “Belt and Road: a Chinese World Order” will be published this month. [MORE]
Over 80% of the World’s Nations received Chinese Foreign Investment in 2019. China’s outbound foreign direct investment totalled USD$136.91 billion, for a YoY decline of 4.3%. The investment sum nonetheless made China the world’s second biggest source of foreign direct investment after Japan ($226.65 billion). As of the end of 2019 China’s total foreign direct investments were $2.2 trillion, third behind the United States ($7.7 trillion) and the Netherlands ($2.6 trillion). China’s outbound foreign direct investment comprised 10.4% of the global total in 2019 – the fourth consecutive year that this figure was above 10%. China’s total foreign direct investments were 6.4% of the total, on par with 2018. 80% of China’s foreign direct investments in 2019 were in the services sector, with key areas including leasing and commercial services, wholesale and retail, finance, information communications/ software, real estate, and transit/ warehousing. [MORE]
Selections and editorial comments by Amarynth. (Go Get that newsletter – it is again packed with detail).
A full-format online meeting of the BRICS foreign ministers has ended. This is the second such meeting this year under Russia’s chairmanship.
The first was dedicated exclusively to mobilising efforts to effectively prevent the spread of the coronavirus infection.
Today, we discussed a wide range of international issues and key items on the agenda of the 75th session of the UN General Assembly as well as our practical cooperation among the five member states.
We have adopted a detailed and appropriate final communiqué. You can read it, so I will not dwell on the key international matters that the communiqué covers in detail.
I would like to note that the communiqué reaffirms the BRICS’ commitment to the principles of multilateralism, reliance on international law and resolving conflicts exclusively through political and diplomatic means and according to the principles enshrined in the UN Charter. Once again, we resolutely supported the central role of the UN in the search for collective answers to the challenges and threats facing humanity.
In this year of the 75th anniversary of Victory in World War II, we noted the importance of preserving the historical memory of this tragedy’s lessons in order to avoid repeating it in the future. We unanimously condemned any and all manifestations of Nazism, racism and xenophobia. The corresponding resolution that is adopted annually by the UN General Assembly is traditionally supported by all BRICS countries.
We agreed to strengthen and promote our strategic partnership in all key areas of BRICS activities, such as politics and security, the economy and finance, and cultural ties.
We are grateful to our friends for supporting Russia’s chairmanship of the Five under rather difficult circumstances, when direct international communication, face-to-face communication, has, in fact, been put on hold. Nevertheless, using modern technology, we have managed to carry out most of the planned activities. We have had over 50 activities and as many will take place before the end of the year. We have every reason to believe (our partners also mentioned this today) that all of the Russian chairmanship’s plans with regard to the BRICS activities will be fulfilled.
We have reached a number of practical agreements, including the one to promote investment and to support the effective participation of micro-, small- and medium-sized enterprises in international trade. Our respective ministries have adopted a joint statement in support of the multilateral trade system and WTO reform. Another important document, the Memorandum of Cooperation in the Competition Policy, was renewed for another term. Our development banks have agreed on an action plan for innovation and blockchain working groups. Other ministries and departments continue to work energetically.
Most of these initiatives are being drafted with an eye to approving them during the next summit, which is scheduled to be held in Russia in the autumn. We will determine the dates later based on the epidemiological situation.
These are the main results. Once again, the communiqué that we have circulated will provide a great deal of interesting information.
Question: The year in which Russia was the BRICS chair has been fairly difficult. The pandemic has taken its toll on every area. What did you manage to accomplish this year in BRICS? What kind of meetings and statements can we expect before 2020 runs out?
Sergey Lavrov: I partially talked about these issues when I presented the main results of our meeting today. To reiterate, we consider it critically important to have reached an agreement on a number of issues.
This includes a package of documents devoted to trade and investment, encouraging small-, medium- and micro-businesses to participate in international trade, strengthening cooperation between banks (central banks and development banks in our respective countries), and the active work of the New Development Bank, which was created by the leaders of the BRICS countries and is operating successfully.) By the way, the Eurasian Regional Centre of the New Development Bank will open in Russia in October.
The agreements concerning the prevention of new challenges and threats are notable as well. A very powerful document on counter-terrorism has been agreed upon and will be submitted for approval by the heads of state. The activities to combat drug trafficking and drug crime have been resumed. Our joint cybersecurity efforts are on the rise. This is a critical area to which we pay special attention.
Notably, special attention was paid to Russia’s initiatives, which were presented a year ago, and that supplemen BRICS’ activities with two new formats. I’m referring to the Women’s Business Alliance (it has been effectively created and is about to go live) and the Energy Research Platform, which is designed to encourage the research community’s involvement in the practical activities on drawing up energy resource plans. Two major events have taken place as part of the Energy Research Platform. Their results will also be submitted for consideration by the heads of state.
Question: You have repeatedly mentioned the importance of international cooperation in combating the coronavirus. China and Russia are now working to develop their own COVID-19 vaccine. China has officially announced its plans to strengthen cooperation in vaccine research and development.
What is your take on the prospects for possible cooperation between China and Russia in vaccine development and production? To what extent will cooperation between the two countries help ensure access to vaccines for other countries in need of support, including the BRICS members?
Sergey Lavrov: Today, we confirmed that this area remains a BRICS priority. Russia and China’s partners (India, Brazil and South Africa) actively supported Moscow and Beijing’s efforts in this regard. All of them appreciated the statements made by our Chinese colleague and myself to the effect that we are interested in the broadest possible cooperation, including with the participation of our BRICS friends. Notably, the coronavirus has by no means initiated the motivation for BRICS cooperation in this area. Interaction began much earlier. The first document on this subject was adopted at the BRICS Summit in Ufa, Russia, in 2015, when the heads of the BRICS states put forward an initiative to establish cooperation in combating infectious diseases. Then, at the 2018 South Africa Summit, our South African partners advanced an initiative to establish a vaccine development and research centre. So, this work has been ongoing for the past five years, even before the coronavirus infection posed very difficult problems for us.
Thanks to the visionary decisions adopted at the earlier summits, the BRICS countries were well prepared and are now able to mobilise their full potential in the face of the coronavirus infection.
Russia’s additional initiatives introduced this year have been reviewed and approved. One of them concerns the creation of an early warning system for epidemiological threats. The other proposes developing specific steps for the legal regulation of medical products which will certainly improve our ability to cope with the coronavirus now and prepare for the fact that we will most likely have to deal with similar challenges more than once in the future. So, BRICS is among the leaders in developing measures to prevent such epidemics and to deal with the aftereffects.
Question: How will statements that we’ve heard in the past two days from Berlin on the issue of Alexei Navalny influence the strategic dialogue between Russia and Europe? Today, NATO urged Russia to fully open its file on Novichok to the OPCW. Who is now interested in a crime scenario on Navalny’s poisoning?
Sergey Lavrov: Representatives of the Presidential Executive Office and the Foreign Ministry have already made statements on this issue. We have nothing to hide. Let me recall again that as soon as Navalny felt unwell on the plane it landed immediately. An ambulance was waiting for him in the airport and he was instantly taken to hospital, switched to an artificial lung ventilator and given other necessary measures. As I understand it, Navalny spent a bit more than a day and a half there. During this time, we were urged every hour to explain what happened and report any information immediately.
For over a week after he was taken to Germany, no one who raised a concern during his stay in Omsk has expressed interest in his case or loudly demanded information from the German doctors. We don’t have new information on this up to this day. It’s the same old story: we are publicly accused of something and our official requests for answers to specific questions from the Russian Prosecutor-General’s Office, under legal assistance treaties, remain unanswered. German Federal Chancellor Angela Merkel has been accusing us for two days of this action (ostensibly, the poisoning) but cannot present anything specific. Today, we once again asked our colleagues in the EU and Germany whether Ms Merkel plans to instruct her staff to send the German Justice Ministry’s response to the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office inquiry.
I already have to say out loud that we have information that this reply is being delayed due to the position of the German Foreign Ministry. We have instructed the Russian Ambassador to Germany to ask for a reason for the delay. Today we were at least promised that the reply would come soon. We will react when we receive it with specific facts. As I see it, the Germans believe their reply will contain these facts. Let me repeat that, regrettably, all this brings to mind what happened with the Skripals and other incidents where Russia was groundlessly accused and the results of the investigation (that took place in Britain in the latter case) remain classified. Nobody sees the Skripals themselves.
I would like to remind you that when, on the wave of this Russophobic hysteria over the Skripals, our British colleagues compelled most EU countries to expel our diplomats (to which Moscow certainly responded), we confidentially asked the EU members whether the Brits presented any facts in addition to what they publicly reported in the media. We received a negative answer. Facts were not presented but they asked to expel our diplomats and promised that specific information would be provided later. I am not being lazy and whenever I meet with my colleagues, I ask them about the Skripals case when they expelled Russian diplomats based on London’s parole of honour and followed its appeal. I ask them whether they were given the promised specific information in addition to what was publicly mentioned and they again said “no.” Nobody has given any information to anyone.
This is why we now approach such high-flown, dramatic statements by our Western colleagues with a large dose of scepticism. We’ll see what facts they present. I think this public conduct and such haughty, arrogant demands made in a tone that our Western partners allow themselves shows that there is little to present except artificially fueled pathetics.
Question: The Ukrainian foreign minister said that the foreign ministers of Germany and France seek to hold a Normandy format foreign minister meeting in September. According to him, you have no objections to this. Is that right?
Sergey Lavrov: The Foreign Ministry has already responded to this question. If someone wants to meet, let them meet. We have not discussed any such matter. We are now talking about preparing a meeting of foreign policy advisers to the Normandy format leaders. Nobody said anything specific about a meeting of foreign ministers, because, I think, they are well aware of our position. First, we need to act upon what the leaders of our countries agreed on in Paris in December 2019. There has been little progress so far. We only see more problems in connection with the constant worsening of the Ukrainian authorities’ position with regard to their commitment to implementing the Minsk agreements.
Question: Yesterday, it became known that the Democrats in the United States demanded immediate imposition of sanctions on Russia in connection with the upcoming US presidential election in November. They are referring to intelligence that says that Russia can allegedly intervene. What can you tell us about this?
Sergey Lavrov: We have been hearing accusations that Russia is interfering in US presidential elections for many years now. It has now become a kind of a game of who is interfering more: Russia, China or Iran? A US national intelligence official recently said that China is interfering more than Russia or Iran. So, grown-up people have been playing these games for a long time now, and this does not surprise us. Sometimes, though, we can’t help but be surprised. I’m referring to recent accusations against Russia to the effect that we are trying to abuse or use in the interest of a particular candidate the planned voting by mail in the United States. I was surprised by this accusation, because until then I thought that voting by mail was part of the differences between President Trump, who outright refuses to allow this type of vote to be held, and the Democrats, who want to use voting by mail as much as possible.
Truth be told, we are used to these attacks. In this case, as in the case of poisonings and other situations in different countries, we will respond to specific facts, if they are presented to us. We keep telling our partners – Americans and Europeans alike – if you have any concern about anything, especially cybersecurity, which has become a particularly common subject for accusations and reproaches against us, let’s sit down and review your facts. We are ready to do so. Unfortunately, our partners in the United States and the EU shun direct conversations based on professional analysis of available facts. We are ready for this, and we encourage our colleagues to do so. They should stop living in the past reminiscing about the colonial era and considering themselves smarter and mightier than others and start working on the basis of what they signed in 1945, namely, the UN Charter principles, including equality, balance of interests and joint and honest work. We are ready for this.
الحروب في العالم ليست من إفرازات العصر الحالي بل كانت نتيجة طبيعية لقيام التجمّعات البشريّة منذ آلاف السنين. هذه التجمعات التي رأت في حيويتها الزائدة دافعاً للتوسع على حساب التجمعات المجاورة بداية، إذ لم يكن وعي الجماعة لوحدتها الاجتماعية قد ترسّخ بعد. وكان من الطبيعي أن ينتج عن الحروب نتيجة من اثنتين: النصر أو الهزيمة. ويكاد مجتمعنا السوري، بماله من خصائص جغرافية مميّزة، أن يكون من أكثر المجتمعات التي شهدت صراعات داخلية دافعها السيطرة وفرض أنظمة محددة من القوي على الضعيف من جهة، وخارجية هدفها أيضاً السيطرة لاستغلال الموارد الطبيعية والاستفادة من الموقع الجغرافيّ لتحصين المكانة الإقليمية أو العالمية. وما زال مجتمعنا حتى الساعة عرضة لموجات متتالية من الصراع على النفوذ أو من الاحتلال المباشر لأجزاء منه تنفيذاً لمخططات سياسيّة تعتمد على رؤى أيديولوجية بعيدة كلّ البعد عن المنطق والعدل الإنساني.
فالأوضاع الجيوسياسيّة التي فرضها علينا الاحتلال المزدوج الانكليزي – الفرنسي والتي أدّت إلى زرع الكيان الإسرائيلي في جنوبنا السوري، لم تزل تداعياتها تتفاعل لتؤدّي إلى نتائج سلبية تطاول مجتمعنا وإيجابية تطاول كيان العدو المغتصب. فالهزائم التي ألحقها هذا العدو البربري، المدعوم من القوى الظلامية العالمية، بعدد من الدول المسمّاة عربية جرّاء حروب ثلاث أدّت إلى تفكك المنظومة العربية التي حاول الاستعمار الترويج لها، لمعرفته المسبقة بعدم قابليتها للتنفيذ. فإذا بالجامعة العربية أسوأ بكثير من الجمعية العامة للأمم المتحّدة، إذ لا هذه ولا تلك تمكّنت من فرض تنفيذ قراراتها المتخذة في جلسات عامة وبمعظمها إمّا بإجماع الأعضاء أو بأغلبيتهم. وتفنّنت هذه الدول العربية بالتخفيف من وقع هزائمها فسمّتها أحياناً نكبة وأحياناً نكسة أملاً بأن يعقب النكسة نصر يمحو العار الذي لحق بهذه الدول نتيجة هزيمتها المخجلة والمعيبة والمذلة لمن أراد أن يصف النتيجة بما يتطابق مع الوقائع. وأكثر هذه الهزائم إيلاماً هي حرب الخامس من حزيران عام 1967 والتي استطاع العدو خلال أسبوع واحد أن يقضي على جيوش ثلاث دول عربية مجتمعة وكانت على علم مسبق بمخططات العدو. ولم تستطع هذه الدول نفسها الاستفادة من الأخطاء والثغرات فإذا بهزيمتها تتكرّر عام 1973 رغم أنها كانت هي المبادرة هذه المرة لشنّ الحرب. وربما نستطيع القول بأنّ مصر وحدها نظرياً استفادت من هذه الحرب التي سارع الخائن السادات إلى إنهائها نتيجة وعد بإعادة سيناء إلى أحضان مصر، وبدلاً من استغلال هذه النتيجة لصالح مصر وبقية دول الطوق التي سبّب لها إسراع السادات بوقف الحرب بخسارة المزيد من أراضيها وتدمير جيشها وإيقاع العديد من الضحايا والأسرى من أفراد جيشها، بادر السادات إلى استكمال خيانته وانهزاميته يوم أعلن استعداده لزيارة دولة الاحتلال وعقد الصلح معها، فدفع دمه نتيجة هذه الخيانة.
ولم يستطع العقل «العربي» أن يجاري العقل اليهودي بالتخطيط أو على الأقلّ بالتصدّي لمخططات العدو الذي انتقل، من القيام بالحرب المباشرة لقضم المزيد من الأرض، إلى الحرب غير المباشرة أيّ استغلال الآخرين لشن الحروب عنه (حرب الأميركيين على العراق، استغلال ما سُمّي بالربيع العربي وإدخال الإرهابيين الدواعش إلى كلّ من العراق وبلاد الشام، كأمثلة على ذلك)، وقطف نتائج هذه الحروب المدمّرة. وها هي جذور هذا التخطيط الجديد تعطي ثماراً إيجابية أفضل بكثير من ثمار الحروب المباشرة. فبدلاً من استعداء الدول العربية مجتمعة من الخليج إلى المحيط وعلى مدى عشرات السنين، استطاع خلال سنوات معدودات أن يجعل من الأعداء أصدقاء يعاونونه على من كان لهم بالأمس القريب، ليس فقط صديقاً، بل أخاً ينادي بما ينادون به من أخوة عربية ولاءات خشبية عن عدم الاعتراف بدولة العدو، أو عقد معاهدات سلام معها، أو حتى التفاوض بشأن السلام والاعتراف.
وانطلاقاً من مخططات العقل الجهنمي الخبيث المستحكم بنفسية عدونا استطاع أن يحوّل هزيمة الأنظمة العربية إلى انهزامية لم يسبق لها مثيل في تاريخ التجمعات البشرية قديماً وحديثاً.
فبدلاً من أن تدفع الهزيمة بالمهزوم إلى تحليل سبب هزيمته لكي يحاول العمل على تفادي هذه الأسباب مما يساعد على قلب الهزيمة إلى نصر، وجدنا أن المهزوم استطاب طعم الهزيمة والذلّ الذي لحقه من جرائها وإذا به يرضخ طوعاً لكلّ شروط المنتصر عليه، بل نجده يزحف راجياً المنتصر أن يمعن بإذلاله، دائساً على ما تبقى من كرامته وشرطه الوحيد إبقاء الزمرة الحاكمة في السلطة. والمؤسف أنّ هذه الزمر الحاكمة استطاعت أن تدجّن الناس وتقنعها بانّها إنّما تفعل ذلك لمصلحتها.
لقد وصلنا إلى زمن من الانهزاميّة المذلة لمن يفقه معنى الانهزام والاستسلام، في حين أنّ الخيانة أصبحت وجهة نظر، فكثرت هذه الوجهات وتعدّدت لتوافق ظروف وأوضاع كلّ كيان من كيانات الأمم العربية التي نجحت مرة واحدة بتجربة الوحدة (مصر والجمهورية العربية السورية)، بحيث كان مكتوباً على هذه التجربة الفشل لأنّها لم تنطلق من المفاهيم الاجتماعية المستندة إلى الحقائق التاريخية والجغرافية. وقلة من رجال الفكر والسياسة أعادوا النظر بمواقفهم على امتداد العالم العربي، هذه المواقف الارتجالية والتي كانت لها ارتدادات سلبية على قضايا أمم العالم العربي المصيرية. واحد من هؤلاء هو عبد الهادي البكار، وقلّة تعرفه أو سمعت به خاصة بين الأجيال الجديدة، وهو إعلامي سوري عاصر أيام الوحدة، وبعد سقوطها اضطهد وأجبر على المغادرة إلى مصر التي كان قد انجرف مع تيارها الناصري الطامح إلى قيادة «الأمة العربية». فكان لهذا الإعلامي الجرأة الكافية، بعدما خذلته مصر الناصرية أيضاً، للاعتراف بانجرافه العروبيّ الذي لم يستند إلاّ إلى وهم، «وأنّ الحلم الوحيد الباقي هو في (سورية الكبرى) التي ساهم في تشويهها حين كان التفكير أو الحديث في ذلك يُعرّض صاحبه إلى التشويه والتخوين». ويذكر الأستاذ سامر موسى على صفحته بأّنّ البكار قد فاجأ قراءه من خلال ما أورده في كتابه (صفحات مجهولة من تاريخ سورية الحديث)، والذي صدر عام 2008 عن (دار الذاكرة) في بيروت إذ قال بأنّه: «تأكّد له خلال العقود الأخيرة اعتلال الفكرة القومية العربية وربما اضمحلالها في العالم العربي، كما تأكّد خلالها احتياج بلاد الشام إلى استنهاض قوتها الذاتية الإقليمية، وأنّ دعوة أنطون سعاده إلى توحيد الأشلاء والأجزاء السورية لم تكن هي الخطأ أو الانحراف بل كانت هي الصواب». وبالرغم من عدم وضوح الرؤية القومية الصحيحة لدى البكّار إلّا أنّ اعترافه هذا يُعتبر خطوة أولى بالاتجاه الصحيح علّها تساعد أجيال المثقفين من التماهي معه لنفض غبار الدسائس التي شوّهت لبّ عقيدة النهضة القومية الاجتماعيّة التي بات كثيرون، ممن حملوا لواء محاربتها في الماضي، يؤمنون ليس فقط بصحتها بل بانّها الوحيدة القادرة على بناء الإنسان الجديد القادر على التصدّي لكلّ مثالب المجتمع، وعلى المساهمة في بنيان المجتمع الجديد القادر على الخروج من مفاهيم الانهزامية إلى مفاهيم الوعي المجتمعي القادر على إعادة زرع مفاهيم الكرامة والعزة والعنفوان التي تعيد للمواطن الثقة بنفسه وبأمته، وبأنّ الهزائم ليست قدراً، وبأنّ النصر ليس بالصعوبة التي يصوّرونها له إمعاناً بإذلاله وزرع اليأس في نفسه.
فما بين النفسية الانهزاميّة التي تبديها معظم كيانات الأمم العربية تبقى بارقة الأمل في كيانات الأمة السورية، صاحبة القرار الوحيدة عندما يتعلق الأمر بالمسألة الفلسطينية. وها هي هذه الكيانات تسطّر أرقى سطور المجد مسقطة أسطورة دولة الاحتلال التي لا تقهر. فمن العراق الذي أسقط انتصار داعش، إلى الشام التي باتت قريبة من دحر المؤامرة الكونية عليها، إلى فلسطين أطفال الحجارة الذين يواجهون بصدورهم العامرة بالإيمان الذي يؤكّد أنّ القوة وحدها تعيد الحقّ السليب، إلى لبنان الذي أعطت مقاومته دروساً تاريخية بالبطولة المؤمنة بصحة العقيدة والتي استطاعت أن تنهي عصر الهزائم وتعلن بدء عصر الانتصارات، سلسلة من المواقف التي تعيد للأمل تألّقه، وتبعث في النفوس الضعيفة القوة من جديد. هذه القوة هي اللغة الوحيدة التي يفهمها العدو، وهي نفسها اللغة التي تخلّت عنها معظم الأنظمة الانهزامية. فالهزيمة ليست قدراً بل هي حافز للتمسك بكلّ أسباب القوة التي تؤمّن الانتصار على مفهوم الانهزام أولاً، وعلى العدو المكابر ثانياً. فلنمسك بأسباب قوّتنا، ولنترك للانهزاميّين العيش في صقيع انهزاميّتهم.
In response to the Trump regime’s annexation scheme of the century, Palestinians have binding recourse — in the General Assembly, not the Security Council.
US veto power prevents adoption of a SC resolution that upholds their rights under international law.
By invoking General Assembly Uniting for Peace Resolution 377 (1950), SC actions can be overridden by a two-thirds majority vote of UN member states.
This step if taken and adopted by the GA cannot be overturned by SC veto.
GA Res. 377 can be invoked immediately by a UN member state at times when SC members fail to act as required to maintain international peace and security.
The State of Palestine exists — on the one hand as a PLO-represented observer state.
More importantly, the PLO adopted the Palestinian Declaration of Independence on November 15, 1988 — drafted by Law Professor Francis Boyle, its legal advisor at the time.
He explained that Palestinian statehood is “determinative, definitive, and irreversible,” adding:
Palestine satisfies all essential criteria for sovereign independence and full de jure UN membership.
All UN Charter states (including America and Israel) provisionally recognized Palestinian independence in accordance with UN Charter article 80(1) and League Covenant article 22(4).
As the League’s successor, the General Assembly has exclusive legal authority to designate the PLO Palestine’s legitimate representative.
The Palestine National Council (PNC) is the PLO’s legislative body. It’s empowered to proclaim the existence of Palestine.
According to the binding 1925 Palestine Citizenship Order in Council, Palestinians, their children and grandchildren automatically become citizens.
So do diaspora Palestinians.
Those living in Israel, Jordan, and elsewhere have dual nationalities.
Occupied Territory residents remain “protected persons” (under Fourth Geneva) until a final peace settlement is reached.Obama Rejects Palestinian Statehood
According to the following characteristics, Palestine qualifies for world community recognition as a de jure UN member state — with all rights and privileges of other world body members:
It’s territory is determinable even though not necessarily fixed, its borders negotiable, the state comprised of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza — where Palestinians have lived for thousands of years, deserving legal recognition of sovereignty over their homeland.
Palestine has a fixed population and functioning government. It supports peace, stability, and cooperative relations with other nations.
It accepts UN Charter provisions and can administer them on their own, along with the ability to establish diplomatic relations with other states.
Palestine fully qualifies for world recognition as a UN member state. If gotten, it can render Trump’s no-peace/peace scheme stillborn.
The General Assembly has sole UN member state admission authority, not the SC.
By invoking GA Res. 377, Palestinians can petition the General Assembly for de jure recognition as a UN member state.
Yet Israeli installed Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas never took this step and is highly unlikely to go this route ahead — why new leadership is essential to pursue fundamental rights Palestinians have been long denied.
Francis Boyle earlier predicted that Palestine “would eventually achieve de jure diplomatic recognition from about 130 states” if its leadership formally seeks it.
He prepared the roadmap for its recognition as a UN member state — by “invok(ing) the UN General Assembly’s Uniting for Peace Resolution…to overcome US vetoes at the Security Council.”
Never taken before, now is the time to go this route in the wake of Trump’s annexation scheme.
Separately I said united under new leadership there’s hope for Palestinians. Divided under traitors in Ramallah serving Israeli interests as its enforcer there’s none.
On Friday, Trump regime UN envoy Kelly Craft warned Palestinians against pursuing their case in the Security Council.
Its UN envoy Riyad Mansour said he’d seek SC support for a draft resolution that counters Trump’s scheme by upholding Palestinian right — a dead-on-arrival initiative.
If followed by invoking GA Res 377, General Assembly UN member states can override the SC veto as explained above.
Mansour said no “Palestinian official will meet with American officials now after they submitted an earthquake, the essence of it the destruction of the national aspirations of the Palestinian people.”
Israel’s UN mission said it’s working to thwart (Palestinian) efforts, and will lead a concerted diplomatic campaign with the US.”
Palestinians have a choice. Invoke GA Res. 377, seeking a two-thirds UN member state majority for their rights or face continued subjugation under Israel’s repressive boot — fully supported by the US and West.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)
His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”
the Director of Research & Development for the Saker.is
The general debate of the General Assembly opened on Tuesday, 24 September at 9:00 a.m. (New York time). This year’s theme was “Galvanizing multilateral efforts for poverty eradication, quality education, climate action and inclusion”.
The internal properties of the C.I.A. newly revised “Disclosure of Urgent Concern” form, which the intelligence community inspector general (ICIG) requires to be submitted under the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA), show that the document was uploaded on September 24, 2019, at 4:25 p.m.
Thus, at some point on September 24th the C.I.A. decided to move forward with the Operation Impeachment, and uploaded an amended “Disclosure of urgent Concern” form to cover their asses with a fig leaf. They did this in response to something that was said during the day of September 24th at the UNGA and to what was about to be said the following sessions. The C.I.A. decided that Nancy Pelosi’s full statement on launching Trump impeachment inquiry will be sufficient enough scandal to detract the Media and the public from statements being made by the leaders and representatives of many nations. Pelosi announced a formal impeachment inquiry on September 24th at noon. So, the C.I.A. posting a revised “Disclosure of Urgent Concern” form four hours later was an afterthought. See the complete story here.
It shows that they had Trump phone conversation with the Kievan mamzer set aside to use when there is a need to create a side-show, but they weren’t completely ready for the UN General Assembly because they didn’t know about the diplomatic demarche and learned about it at the last moment.
Another curious detail is that the impeachment inquiry is officially based on the complaint arising out of a confidential diplomatic communication between the President and a foreign leader and it being used to detract from the diplomatic demarche made by the foreign leaders at the UNGA.
How to detract public attention by offering a fake target
The UN organized a diplomatic demarche. To detract from this international demarche, the globalists conjured a fierce fake target with the cooperation of their Kievan mamzer. Trump, of cause, had to become their main target. Why not to kill two birds with one stone, to detract from the UN members’ diplomatic demarche and to try, once again, to unseat the president and to grab power? The thinking humanity, being totally disoriented by information wars, thundered following this dog and rabbit race without paying the slightest attention to the fact that leaders and representatives of so many world states expressed harsh criticism of Israel’s occupation and murder of Palestinians living in this open air concentration camp and used as live targets by Israelis. Even the Chinese offered Israel to clear off the occupied territories.
Did you hear on your national TVs that the heads of states representing half of the world population loudly and sternly demanded Israel to get out of the occupied lands? No? That’s right you didn’t hear anything because at the end of the first day of the diplomatic demarche in the UNGA, the C.I.A. changed the rules of engagement, and Pelosi made her statement about the impeachment, and from this point on all you could hear were the attacks against Trump, the following day everyone rushed to discuss the Kievan mamzer, then the meeting between Trump and the Kievan mamzer, them the pictures of the mamzer and Trump, next day it was the turn for the mamzer’s wife and her clothes.
On the top of the verbal and visual torrent, came the globalists’ spawn, the face of disdain that the rich and powerful feel towards the rest of us. The code name of the spawn is “the girl Greta,” and she is not to be confused with another similar girl whose code name was the “Kurdish girl,” who gave so called The Nayirah testimony, a false testimony given before the Congressional Human Rights Caucus on October 10, 1990 by the daughter of the Kuwait’s Ambassador to the United States, who has never been to Iraq. She was revealed as a fake Kurdish girl, but after the war that she with so much emotion called for. The truth about the girl’s identity was whispered after Saddam was killed along with hundred thousands Iraqis children, Saddam’s children and grandchildren were killed, then children of the Iraq’s military officers and police officers, Christian children and Muslim children, and children of Iraq’s teachers and scientists. Children are still dying in Iraq long after the war is over, from depleted uranium 4,000,000 pounds of which used in the 2003 invasion.
While the slaughter of the nation was taken place, the Kurdish actors played on camera a talented scripted show of being raped by Saddam personally with fake tears streaming down their lying faces. It was non-stop around the clock tales of ‘rape,’ while real Iraqi women were raped by invading armies of the US and their partners in crime, Israeli proxies, and by Kurds themselves and all mercenaries from around the world that Kurds managed to bring into the country.
The 21st century genocide of Arabs started with the girl in the UN.
The “girl Greta” turned out to be a bit too much even for the trained to listen and obey international audience. She, like similar females prior in history, Clara Zetkin, Rosa Luxemburg, Nadezhda Krupskaya, was brought up to be ‘the face of protest’ and the face of European youth. But this face is so terrifying, that European youth is slow to recognize itself in it.
So, here we got not only a detraction from reasonable well-educated men in suits who started their speeches with thanking God and demanded that laws adopted by the international community were observed. We also got the face of the future “genocide from the distance,” We see a girl… she is not killing anyone, no, on the contrary, she asks to protect someone, or something… it’s only with the lapse of time mass murders will commence. These girls, and the fake Kurdish girl and this fake European girl, they were brought to the UN by some evil men as if into some enchanted forest. And when it will be over, this girl will grow up like the one before her, and who would blame them for the tragedies they both caused?
The first act of the drama “girl Greta” has already played, when she also served as distraction from the diplomatic demarche of the leaders and representatives of fifty percent of the world population to stop genocide of Palestine. From the “Girl Greta” point of view, people are not nature. It’s because of two terrifying female dwarfs playing their roles, Nancy and Greta, the world didn’t hear the demands of the world leaders for Israel immediately seize the occupation and to return back within its 1967 border.
The political demarche started with the address by the president of Nigeria.
(All the following are mine unofficial transcripts.)
Listen starting at 9:15 minute of the video. “The UN has new opportunities to take the lead on issues that continue to cloud the prospect for international peace, prosperity, namely the right of the Palestinian people to have their own country free of occupation. The international community has spoken from Resolution 242 of 1967 to the present day on the right of Palestinian people to have and live in peace on their own land.”
Stating at 22 minute of his speech Erdogan spoke about the plight of Palestine under Israeli occupation. he said that Palestine has been the most striking place of injustice.
“If the images of the innocent Palestinian woman, who was murdered heinously by Israeli security forces on the street just a few days ago will not awake the global conscience, then we are standing at the point where words are not sufficient. I am quite curious, what about this map of Israel? Where is Israel? Where does the land of Israel begin and end? Look at this map. Where was Israel in 1947? And, where is Israel now? Especially between the years, of 1949 and 1967. Where was Israel and where is Israel now? Look, this is 1947. The Land of Palestine. There is seemingly almost no Israeli presence on these lands. The entire territory belongs to the Palestinians. So the map suggests, but in the year of 1947 the Distribution Plan takes place, gets ratified, Palestinian lands start shrinking and Israel starts expending. From 1947 to 1967 Israel is still expending, Israel is still expending and Palestine is still shrinking. And today, the current situation… there is seemingly no Palestinian presence. The entire land belongs to Israel. But would it suffice to Israel? No. Israel is still willing to take over the remaining land. But… what about the United nations Security Council? What about the United Nations? What abut the resolutions? Are those resolutions being activated? Are they being implemented and unforced? No. We have to ask ourselves, what does the UN serve? Under this roof we are producing resolutions without any effect. Where do you think justice can prevail? This is our main suffering. This is where the pain is coming from. the current Israeli government and the administration right to these murders and atrocities is busy interfering and attacking the historical legal status of Jerusalem and call it secret lands and artifacts. As Turkey, we have a very clear stance on this issue: the immediate establishment of the independent Palestinian state with homogeneous territories on the basis of 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital is the only solution. Any other peace plan other than this will never have a chance of being fair and just, and it will never be implemented.
Now, I am asking from the rostrum of the United States General Assembly, where are the borders of Israel? Is it the 1947 borders? The 1967 borders? Or, is there another border that we need to know of? How can the Golan Heights and the West Bank settlements be seized just like other occupied Palestinian territories before the eyes of the world if they are not within the official borders of the state? Is the aim of the initiative promoted as the Deal of the Century to entirely eliminate the presence of the state and the people of Palestine? Do you want another bloodshed? All actors of the international community and particularly the UN should provide a concrete support to the Palestinian people beyond more promises. In this regard it’s very important for the UN relief and aid agencies for Palestinian refugees to continue their work effectively. Turkey will continue to stand by the oppressed people of Palestine as she has always done. “
Curiously, Erdogan’s statement that “words are not sufficient,” weren’t reported in the Western media at all, and they were mis-translated and mis-reported by the Russian-language media. The RT ‘forgot’ to translate this statement, and other media outlets reported this statement by mis-translating it as “If the images of the innocent Palestinian woman, who was murdered heinously by Israeli security forces on the street just a few days ago will not awake the global conscience, then the world is standing at the point of global moral collapse.”
Listen starting at 16:20 of the video, ”… the resolution of the protracted crisis that I inherited once is the necessary precondition for any serious efforts aimed at formulating a more effective international system. The most prominent example of this is the longest standing crisis in the Middle East, namely the Palestinian cause. The persistence of this cause without a just solution based on international resolutions calling for independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital doesn’t only mean the continuation of the plight of Palestinian people, but it also entails the continued depletion of resources of the people of the Middle East. And I repeat with the clear conscience what I stated from this podium over the past two years. I say that Arabs are open to the realization of the just and comprehensive peace. The Arab Peace Initiative is still on the table and there are remain an opportunity to launch a new phase in the Middle East. However, we need bold decisions that restore the rights to the Palestinians that would pave the way to the major change in the reality of this region. And I say this without exaggeration, for the entire world this decision would led to the establishment of the security and economic system in the Middle East that is based on peace, security, cooperation and common interest.”
“Despite of the best efforts by the UN and its member states for a number of decades, the question of Palestine remains unresolved. Never before the unalienable rights of the Palestinian people being so acutely and blatantly dismissed by Israel, marginalized and discriminated against, in complete disregard of the international law and the resolutions of both, the General Assembly and the Security Council. We are strongly agree that the lasting peace in the Middle East can only come to fruition through a two state solution, driven by genuine and meaningful dialog between them and between Arab countries and Israel. We call on the United Nations and its member states to undertake every effort to a settlement that would achieve this result. We expressed our unvarying support for the Palestinians to achieve their independence in the 1967 borders.”
“Honorable audience, the continuation of the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories and the Arab territories in general, and the ensuing unlawful practices, in particular of settlements, judaization of the city of Jerusalem, the unjust and strangling blockade of Gaza strip, intensifying settlement activity of the occupied territories of Syrian Golan Heights and changing its nature, all these practices are happening in defiance of the UN and its resolutions, to the extend that Israel has come to regard the airspace of the countries of the region as opened to it. How long will international legitimacy remain inapt and unable to find anyone who would enforce its respect when it comes to Palestine? It has been proven that settlements based on the imposition of the logic of force will only result in their violation and denial by the logic of force of occupation as well. However, permanent peace is based on justice, which means guarantying the rights of the Palestinian people whose homeland has been usurped. For most of which it means the establishment of the Palestinian state in the borders of 1967 with East Jerusalem as its capital and the end of Israeli occupation of all occupied Arab lands including the Syrian Golan Heights and the Lebanese occupied territories. Qatar will not stop supporting any efforts in favor of realizing just peace. It will continue to provide political and humanitarian support to the brotherly Palestinian people. “
“No crisis has done more global damage than a core conflict in my region, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Neither side has achieved a durable peace that the secure future depends on. The regional and world stability has continued to pay the price. It is a terrible irony that the land holding three faiths, the faiths which shared the great commandment to love one’s neighbor, should ever be a place of conflict. This is the land where prophets walked. The land where generations of Muslims, Christians, and Jews resorted to live in obedience to God’s teaching to share compassion, mercy and respect for others. Segregation, forced displacement, violence and mistrust do not belong in this Holy land. Forty years ago my father his late majesty King Hussein who loved peace stood in this very chamber and decried the occupation and attempts, in his words, “to eradicate from the world memory centuries of history and tradition and spiritual and moral cultural ideas.” It is the global moral tragedy that the occupation continues. But no occupation, no displacements, no acts of force can erase people’s history, hope or rights, or change the true heritage of our shared values that are three monotheistic faiths. And nothing can take away the international rights of the Palestinian people to equality, justice and self-determination. My friends, young people ask me why don’t world stand up for Palestinian rights? Isn’t it time to answer them by showing that global justice and human rights belong to them too? And it begins with respect to the Holy sites, and rejecting all attempts to alter the legal status of East Jerusalem and the authentic historic character of the Holy city of Jerusalem. What lessons do we teach the young people when armed personnel enter Al-Aqsa mosque even when Muslim worshipers gather to pray. As the Hashemite custodian, I am bound by the special duty to protect Jerusalem Islamic and Christian Holy sites. But all of us have a stake and a moral obligation to uphold religious freedom and human rights. Let us to safeguard the Holy city for all humanity as a unifying city of peace. We must also press towards an end to the conflict, and for a just lasting and durable peace through realization of a two-state solution, a solution that is in accord with the international laws and the UN resolution which provides the end to the conflict and creates an independent, viable, sovereign Palestinian state on the 1967 lines with East Jerusalem as its capital, living side by side with Israel in mutual peace and security. The two-state solution is the only genuine solution. Because what is the alternative? One state? Segregated? With unequal laws? Depending on force to strain the deepest values of the good people on both sides? This is the formula for enduring conflict. It’s not a path to stability, security and peace.”
Starting at 12:50 of this video, ” the Palestinian issue should be pushed on top of the international agenda. What we lack is not a grand design, but the courage to deliver our commitments and the conscience to uphold justice. There should be no more regression from the two-state solution and the line for peace principle, which represents the bottom line of the international justice. For the Palestinian people to establish their own state is their inalienable right. something that should not be used as a bargaining chip.”
On Septenber 27th, the diplomatic demarche continued by Malaysian Prime Minister. Starts at 6 minute of this video.
The president of Burkina Faso addressed the General Debate of the 74th Session with the support of Palestine and two-state solution, starting at 19 minutes of this video.
Statements made by Sergei Lavrov, the Foreign Minister of Russia.
During his Q&A session: “It’s a pity that we cannot navigate out of the corner where Palestinian problem is being trapped.”
Sergey Lavrov: “As I said, all the games are around the Palestinian problem: the promise of the “deal of the century”, the offer of $50 billion. in order not to return refugees to Palestine, the attempt to first persuade Arab countries to normalize relations with Israel, and only then to solve the Palestinian problem (which directly contradicts the Arab peace initiative) – all this is currently driving, if not already driven, the Palestinian-Israeli settlement to a standstill.
We are convinced (as I also said in my statement to the General Assembly) that it is not in the interests of Israel or of anyone else. Because only a two-state solution, only the creation of the Palestinian state promised 70 years ago, can ensure peace and stability in the entire region, alleviate the problem, including dramatically reducing the ability of extremists to recruit young people from the Arab street. We say this openly to the Israelis. Unfortunately, while the American line is to do it yourself, remains in demand.”
“The United States set a tough course for abolishing the UN resolutions on international legal framework of the Middle East settlement. It suggests waiting for some “deal of the century”, meanwhile it has taken unilateral decisions on Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. A two-state solution to the Palestinian issue – which is essential for satisfying the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people and providing security for Israel and the whole region – is under threat.”
“Instead of working towards peace and stability of the Middle east, Israel has started yet another phase of escalation, heightening regional tensions to unprecedented levels. Israel has not not only occupy Arab territories, including the Syrian Golan, it also continues to violate international humanitarian and human rights laws, and it continues to support terrorism on a daily basis. It has even launched repeated attacks on the Syrian territory, and the territories of neighboring countries under false pretense and in fragrant violation of international law. the UN Charter and relevant Security Council resolutions. This Israeli violations would not continue to escalate would it not for the blind support of certain countries that are fully responsible for the consequences of Israeli actions.
Such support became horrifically evident, when the United States decided to recognize Israe’s alleged and false sovereignty over the occupied Syrian Golan recognized the occupied city of Jerusalem as a capital of Israel, and to relocate its embassy to Jerusalem, not to mention the intensity of efforts to undermine the Palestinian cause. All of these decisions are null and void and represent a complete disregard to international legitimacy. Some must understand that the era of acquisition of land by force has long past. It’s a delusion to think that the crisis in Syria would force us to forfeit our inalienable right to recover the Golan fully to the borders of June 4th of 1967 by using all possible measures under the international law. Moreover, it’s a delusion to think that the decisions of the US administration on the sovereignty over the Golan would alter the historical and geographical facts, or the provisions of international law. The Golan has been and will forever be a part of Syria.
Israel must be compelled to implement relevant United Nations resolutions. Notably the resolution #497 on the occupied Syrian Golan and to seize its repeated attacks on the countries of the region, as well as its settlement activities. Israel must be compelled to allow the Palestinian people to establish their own independent state with Jerusalem as its capital along the borders of June 1967, and ensure the return of Palestinian refugees to their homes.”
The UN transcript of all the speeches will be available in months to come, when the 74th UNGA will be a thing of the past. You can search the addresses of the heads of states here on the UN YouTube channel. Maybe, you will understand why this year diplomatic demarche against Israeli occupation and aggression called for such drastic measures of detraction.
In conclusion, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Israel as a country is, by all accounts, a hellhole. Israel will be uninhabitable in the next fifty years. Extreme heat, lack of drinking water, vegetables grown in human excrements, militarism, mind control by the police state, poverty, overcrowding, unemployment, desperation, – name a social malady and you can find it there. Most Israelites are poor and depending on the state to provide for them, many still live in kibbutzs. Israel is a state of militant socialism and the ruling theocracy in many regards. Most young people dream of leaving Israel for good and look for every opportunity to move to Europe and the Americas. Two million of Israelites are from the Soviet Union and Russia, and Russia doesn’t want them back considering their loudly proclaimed hatred of Russia, Russian people and the Orthodox Christianity, and considering the genocide of Russian people that the Jewish government of Trotskists-Bolsheviks organized in the 1920s.
Mostly the religious families depending on social payments and other poor people live in the illegal settlements. Forced to move inside the 1967 borders, they would have no place and means to resettle, even if all agricultural lands would be build over. The faith based and state authorities use the UN pressure to create non-stop hysteria and the apocalyptic visions of the ‘war of the world’s nations of Gog and Magog’ against them and the ‘end of their world’ inside the Israeli society.
Using President Putin’s words of ‘not trapping a rat into a corner,’ the UN members should come up with an attractive offer. Those states who claim “friendship” with Israel, like the US and Brazil, should offer to Israelites a part of their territory to create an autonomous Jewish state. New president of Brazil had especially boasted his ‘love’ for Israel and having vast sparsely populated territories where Israelites could create their new better home. Simultaneously, rich Israel’s allies like the Saudis and the UK should pay for people to resettle. When those who want to relocate have new homes, schools and jobs in their new lands, a couple of ocean-liners should be dispatched to take them all to their new new life in Brazil or the US. Then, the UN peacekeepers should be used to secure the 1967 border.
The most devastating war in history, the World War II, was facilitated as a part of the plan to create the state of Israel, To amend this terrible mistake that drains resources and good will of an entire world would take an effort of humanity as a whole, once again.
UPROOTED PALESTINIANS: SALAM ALQUDS ALAYKUM 