On August 3rd of this year, something truly remarkable happened at the United Nations: the UNGA passed a resolution formally condemning the Syrian regime and the UN Security Council but which everybody understood was really a condemnation of Russia and China over their triple veto of Western sponsored anti-Syria resolutions. The vote was 133 to 12. The 12 who voted "no" are: Russia, China, Syria, Iran, Belarus, Bolivia, Cuba, Myanmar, Nicaragua, North Korea, Venezuela and Zimbabwe.
Considering that Russia, China and Syria were the real targets of the condemnation, it is no surprise that they voted against this resolution. The same goes for Iran which is the main supporter of the Assad regime. All the other countries who voted against this resolution are currently the object of various forms of "active measures" by the US and their "no' vote was expected.
And yet.
Take a closer look at this amazing official voting record:
In favor: Afghanistan, Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Comoros, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Latvia, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sudan, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Zambia.
Against: Belarus, Bolivia, China, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Iran, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Russian Federation, Syria, Venezuela, Zimbabwe.
Abstain: Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Burundi, Ecuador, Eritrea, Fiji, Ghana, Guyana, India, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Madagascar, Mali, Namibia, Nepal, Pakistan, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Viet Nam.
Absent: Cambodia, Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Kiribati, Malawi, Philippines, South Sudan, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Yemen.
I don't know about you, but this leaves me speechless and, frankly, in shock.
First shock: Argentina and Brazil did not even have the courage to abstain! Second shock: Ecuador's Rafael Correa did not have the courage to vote "no". Third shock: Iraq and Serbia actually supported this resolution. Finally, while not quite a shock, but South Africa's vote is a great disappointment considering the role this country attempted to play during the US/NATO war on Libya. Put differently, not a single BRICS country had the courage to stand by Russia and China.
Looking at this list I was reminded of the prophetic words of the last Russian Tsar Nicholas II who in his diary wrote the following words:" I am surrounded by cowardice, treason and lies". I always thought that this was an excellent summary of the 20th century, but it appears that the 21st century begins on exactly the same basis.
There is no way to put a positive spin on this: there are currently only 3 poles of resistance to the US Empire on this planet: two big powers (Russia and China), acting independently, but clearly in coordination with each other, then a much weakened "Shia alliance" lead by Iran (which Iraq just betrayed), and the Latin American alliance of Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua and Bolivia. That's it (no offense to anybody, but Zimbabwe, Myanmar or the DPRK are not countries which anybody would want as an ally anyway).
The rest of the planet has basically submitted to the orders of Uncle Sam, at least symbolically.
Of particular disgrace is the vote of all the Arab countries (only Algeria dared to abstain) and of the Muslim countries. Truly, we are living in a world of cowardice, treason and lies. To these three characterizations, I would normally add "stupidity", but in the case of this resolution I just don't believe that this result can be explained away by stupidity. This is not stupidity, this is a act of planet-wide prostitution to, and collaboration with, an Empire who does not even bother to try to present a fair, honest or otherwise respectable facade to its military interventions.
A few days after the false flag attacks of 9/11 Dubya famously said: " Either you are with us, or with the terrorists". A little over a decade later the vast majority of the governments represented at the UN has responded "we are with you!!". Because, of course, this vote had absolutely nothing to do with Syria, Assad, human rights or even Israel. This was a vote to "get back" and, basically, threaten Russia and China by a show of (imperial) force. Remember Hillary's words to the "Friends of Syria" conference in Paris?
“I do not believe that Russia and China are paying any price at all – nothing at all – for standing up on behalf of the Assad regime. The only way that will change is if every nation represented here directly and urgently makes it clear that Russia and China will pay a price”
Hillary demanded a price, and the Arab League delivered it.
But the real question now is whether these threats will be effective in deterring Russia or China in the future. I personally am rather confident that they will not: both Russia and China are strong enough (economically, politically and militarily) to dare to defy Uncle Sam openly.
The situation of the Latin American Resistance is much worse: Venezuela, Cuba, Bolivia and Nicaragua are all fragile economically, politically and even militarily, and they clearly do not enjoy the support of the rest of the regimes in Latin America who, unlike the people themselves, are either too frightened or too corrupt to dare to defy the US.
As for the Shia, Iran and Hezbollah are very powerful politically and militarily, but they are also increasingly isolated in a Middle-East dominated by the Zio-Sunni-US alliance.
Another Russian Tsar, Alexander III, father of Nicholai II, once famously declared "Russia has only two allies: her the army and her navy". Of course, that was in the 19th century. Nowadays, Russia has four more allies: her Air Force, her Strategic Rocket Forces, her Aerospace Defence Forces and her Airborne Forces. That's about it but that is also probably enough.
The same goes for China which also has another powerful ally: Walmart & Co. The real question is can Russia and China be real, trustworthy and useful allies for those countries who dared to defy the US? What will Russia and China do to help as much as can countries such as Bolivia or Nicaragua who are taking a huge risk in their open defiance of the Empire?
As for the Middle-East, it is becoming increasingly clear that Iran and Hezbollah are becoming isolated and even surrounded by a very effective Zio-Sunni-US alliance and that if we can rest assured that Iran will stand by Hezbollah, it is absolutely essential that Russia and China now fully support Iran at least politically and economically.
Turning back to the situation in Syria, it is hard to judge the dynamics on the ground: it appears that the regime has succeeded in kicking the insurgents out of Damascus and (most of) Aleppo, but that really means very little. My overwhelming feelings is that Assad, like all Baathists, is first and foremost a looser and while I hope that Iran, Russia, China and Hezbollah can avoid the worst possible outcome (a repetition of the disgraceful collapse of the Gaddafi regime, but this time in Syria), I don't really see any scenario whose outcome I could qualify as "overall positive". One way or another, this (last) Baathist "lion" will be defeated as easily as the rest of the Arab (pseudo-Muslim) secularist "lions" (Saddam, Gaddafi). My only hope - I am not holding my breath - is that somehow a real Syrian patriot can be found to replace him and beat back the US/NATO/al-Qaeda puppets running the insurgency. I hope that I am wrong, but things have just gone too far and, frankly, it is just not realistic to hope that the Syria could stand up to almost the entire planet (as shown by the vote at the UNGA).
Unlike many others, I have always considered Syria as a huge liability in the Resistance front against Israel or the US Empire. Assad showed his true face when he let the Israelis murder Mugniyeh and when he accepted to torture suspects rendered by the US CIA. Yes, Assad did help Hezbollah, but for exactly the same reasons as the House of Saud helped the Wahabis: to obtain legitimacy, while at the same time covertly collaborating with the USA. Whatever may be the case, I think that we have to assume that most of the Middle-East will be partitioned into two camps: overly pro-USA (like Jordan) and covertly pro-US (Sunni/Takfiri regimes), and both camps can be expected to be vehemently anti-Shia.
I would argue that both Russia and China have a huge stake in not letting the Shia camp collapse if only because only the Shia forces have the potential to be real regional allies. Furthermore, it is quite obvious that should Iran and Hezbollah be sufficiently weakened, the Zio-Sunni-US will immediately turn to other parts of the world to "liberate" such as the Caucasus, the Chinese provinces of Xinjiang, Gansu, or Ningxia, Russian regions such as Tatarstan or Bashkiria. Traditional Sunni Muslim countries such as Kazakhstan - a key partner to both Russia and China - or Tadjikistan would also be threatened. Russia and China should therefore pursue an aggressive policy of support for traditional (non-Salafi/Wahabi/Takfiri) forms of Sunni Islam internally and for strong support of Shia Islam externally. Such a policy would combine doing what is morally right with enlightened, pragmatic self-interest. In this context, any attempts to stir-up anti-Muslim feelings in Russia or China should be vehemently denounced for what they really are: doing the bidding of the US/NATO/Israeli Empire.
And what about the 133 prostitutes who voted with the Empire? Well, the one good thing about prostitutes is that they are for sale. As long as Russia and China are strong every single one of these prostitutes can be bought, if not always actually, then at least potentially. Yes, right now things do look bleak, but the US Empire is still undergoing a slow-motion collapse economically, while Russia and China are almost ideally complementary to each other, and potentially far more powerful even then the US and EU combined.
Finally, consider this: this infamous resolution was rather ambiguously worded anyway (they always are) and other than some backslapping in the White House, it carries really no meaningful consequences for anybody. So while this was a much needed exercise in imperial hubris for Hillary it hardly amounts to any real "price" to pay for Russia or China. Bottom line: after being throughly humiliated as the UN Security Council, the US spent a great deal of political capital getting a "feel-good" resolution adopted at the General Assembly.
Who really cares?
The Saker
