Speech delivered by Hizbullah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah on September 23rd, 2014

I take refuge in Allah from the stoned devil. In the Name of Allah, The Compassionate, The Most Merciful. Peace be upon the Seal of Prophets, our Master and Prophet, Abi Al Qassem Mohammad, on his chaste and pure Household, on his chosen companions and on all messengers and prophets.

Peace be upon you and Allah’s mercy and blessings.

Frankly tonight I have more than one point to tackle: the situation in Lebanon, the situation in the region in general, and the events which are moving faster. However, I will commit myself to the available time limit. So I might not be able to cover all of these topics. Consequently, if I did not tackle some points, that does not mean that they are not important. There are several important points; however, the available time may not be enough to cover them.

Well, we will see within the available time what points I will be able to tackle.

First: The issue of the military men who are kidnapped by the armed groups in the barren mountains of Irsal, the repercussions of the cause, the stance from it, and the track it has taken.

Usually in similar causes – we will tackle a cause which was similar to it; I mean the cause of Aazaz kidnapped men – we avoid taking overt stances or discussing such issues publicly. That's because after all the other side which is kidnapping and detaining these dear men has its mentality and calculations. We usually are alert and a bit precautious. As far as Aazaz cause was concerned, you would have noticed that we did not talk openly. We used to offer whatever possible assistance. Hizbullah played important roles which remained unannounced. That's because what was important to us was to set these hostages and detainees free.

The media is not important. What is important is what we say and what we offer.

Today the same applies. This cause is of much importance, and it is very critical too. Still and though the event had taken place some two month ago by now, we have always preferred to tackle the issue in the cabinet with the concerned officials away from the media. However, today I find myself obliged to talk.

As I said, the cause is very critical and important whether as far as the kidnapped and detained military men are concerned, or as far as their families are concerned, or as far as the military institution and the official security institutions are concerned. The families of the detainees are being subject to massive psychological, emotional, moral, and political pressure. After all, they are military men and soldiers in these institutions, and consequently, the dignity, future, and integrity of these institutions are at stake as well. The rest of the military men are looking at this sample which they are facing now from this perspective and unfortunately, from the campaign of political and media distortion and falsification which is being waged daily on this cause.

First, I would like to offer my sincere condolences to the families of the oppressed military martyrs, who were slaughtered by the terrorist kidnappers: martyr Ali Ahmad Sayyed, martyr Abbass Ali Midlij, and martyr Mohammad Maarouf Hamieh. We highly evaluate the stances of the fathers and families of these martyrs. In fact, theirs were national, moral, and humanitarian stances, and we hope that several political sides and personalities would rise to the level of the fathers and families of the martyrs. We also offer our condolences to the families of all the National Lebanese Army martyrs in the recent events in Irsal the last of whom were martyr Ali Ahmad Hamade and martyr Mohammad Assem Daher as well as the martyr who was oppressively killed today in Tripoli - martyr soldier Mohammad Khaled Hussein. We also stand sincerely by the families of the kidnapped military men who are still living in the sphere of threat.

We understand and share with them these feelings. In fact, we understand best the feelings and emotions of the families of the detainees, the missed, and the martyrs because of our long experience in the resistance. To understand this, we do not need time. We have been part of this sufferance for decades. We salute the sacrifices of the Lebanese Army and the security forces especially the army for its leadership, officers, and soldiers' steadfastness and bravery.

After this salutation, allow me to usher into the issue.

All the Lebanese know that for almost two months by now the terrorist armed groups inside Irsal and in the barren mountains of Irsal staged an aggression against the Lebanese Army check points and offices in Irsal and its neighborhood as well as against the offices of the Internal Security Forces and the security apparatuses under the pretext of the army detaining so called Imad Jomaa. This led to the broad aggression which was not coincident at all. Everyone who is acquainted with military action knows that following an accidental incident such as arresting this man, it is impossible that such a broad and wide attack take place against all check points and offices in such a broad area leading to the martyrdom of several officers and soldiers, the injury of others, the detention of tens besides the destruction of vehicles and offices.

The army strongly confronted the armed forces and restored its check points and offices. As a result of this confrontation – this is the point we want to reach – a number of military men – members in the army, the security forces, and the security institutions – were taken hostages by these groups. Why? How? This is another point of discussion.

After all, all the Lebanese and all of Lebanon came to be before such a cause called the cause of the military men kidnapped by terrorist armed groups in the barren mountains of Irsal. In itself, this is a humanitarian, national, and moral cause that does not concern a definite region, side, party, sect, or faction. It is rather a cause that concerns all of the Lebanese. It concerns Lebanon as a state, people, army, and institutions. It concerns all the Lebanese. It does not only concern their families or the military or security institutions.

From the very beginning, all the political forces, the people, the media, the elites, and especially the political forces whether in the government or outside the government must have dealt with this cause according to its national, moral, and humanitarian level.

It was and is still supposed that the aim of everyone be to restore the kidnapped military men and return them to their families as soon as possible. From the very first moment, this must have been the goal and this must still be the aim, and it will remain the aim until it is achieved. From the very first moment, all those who must have and are still supposed to join efforts must have exploited whatever means and offered every possible help to achieve this goal and put an end to this cause.

Unfortunately, some have turned this national cause to a subject for argument, false accusations, settling political calculations, causing factional feuds, igniting daily sectarian incitements, and even distorting facts, falsifying, and lying. Even more, some went even further. They raised the ceiling of the demands even more than the demands of the terrorist kidnappers themselves. Some people in Lebanon did not only adopt the demands of the terrorists. They even raised the ceiling of the demands higher than what the armed groups aspired to. So instead of condemning those who staged an aggression against the army and the security forces and killed, wounded, ruined, kidnapped, slaughtered, and stole, they accused and condemned other sides in the Lebanese internal. Some even justified what the terrorists did and even defended them. Anyway, today, I will try to put things in their place especially as far as we are concerned and I will not open the files of the others' performance and conduct because the situation in the country does not bear that.

There is much to say, and we are able to say much, and we need to say much; however, I do not like to do what I criticize others for doing. I want to say that this cause must be not a matter for argument and away from the subjects of mutual accusations, struggle, and settlements. I do not like to tackle that.

It is note-worthy that what have been taking place in the past few weeks - since the beginning of cause until now - is very painful and sorrowful, and it indicates the level of dealing with this cause that concerns all the Lebanese. Perhaps the cause of Aazaz did not concern all of the Lebanese, according to some. However, it is supposed that this cause mean all of the Lebanese. Still, I will not tackle this point because I do not want to cause an argument. Should I open all the files from the very beginning until now, that will not serve the cause of the kidnapped military men.

First: From the very beginning, we dealt, and are still dealing – as it is correct to deal – with this cause as primarily being the responsibility of the Lebanese government and the Lebanese authority in the first place, and everyone must support, cooperate, and back the Lebanese government in addressing this cause.

The second point has to do with the principle of negotiations. It is normal that in the cases of hostages, captives, and kidnapped detainees, that the concerned sides carry negotiations. This is very normal around the world. This takes place. We do that, and we did that. We carried indirect negotiations at several occasions to restore captives and the bodies of martyrs. We have done this, and we do this every day. We did it in Syria, and we do that every day. Now we have missed fighters and martyrs since a period of time – several months. What is said in the media is true. We seize any chance to carry negotiations. This is the right track. This is normal. This is logical. Thus we never rejected the principle of negotiations. Here, I would like the families of the kidnapped military men to be listening to me: If any one of the deputies or the politicians or article writers would tell you that Hizbullah – as we are placed in the front and messages are being sent to us – refuses the principle of negotiations, he would be lying on you for political goals and not because he cares for your children to be restored. We never refused the principle of negotiations. The political authority has the right to negotiate too. The officers have contacted us, and we made discussions with them. This is normal. The normal choice is that the political authority negotiate with terrorists, terrorist groups, and Takfiri movements. There is no difference. As far as the issue of captives is concerned, when it came to "Israel", indirect negotiations used to take place. As it is a humanitarian issue, no such political remarks are taken into consideration. After all, the authority in Lebanon is the side which is to decide whether to negotiate directly or indirectly. It specifies the mediator; but there was never any debate on the principle of negotiations.

Third: From the very first day, we have said that negotiations should be conducted from a position of strength.

Aren't you saying that Lebanon must negotiate like other states which have captives and hostages and negotiate to restore them? Well, no one in the world begs or deals with the kidnappers from a helpless position. There is nothing of this sort as some are trying to impose on the Lebanese government and Lebanon. Whoever wants to negotiate must search for all cards of strength and put them on the table and take a previous decision that he might resort to them and let the kidnappers understand that he might resort to them. Afterwards, he would head to negotiations. This is what we are calling for. The cards of strength exist. PM Salam had talked about them, and the government knows the cards of strength it owns. It is not right to talk about this in the media. It is not right that the media tackles this. The mediator as well as the kidnapper must be informed of the cards of strength so that they would be beneficial for the negotiations and so that other gates which I will tackle later on would be opened.

Well, is there anything wrong in that? I am asking the families of the captives and the Lebanese people. Is there anything wrong if a political side calls on the government to negotiate from the position of strength and not to beg? Do not present the Lebanese Army, the Lebanese government, and the Lebanese people as weak and frail before small armed groups all what it is able to do is to put the sword on the neck of the soldiers and consequently, threaten Lebanon, the Lebanese Army, the Lebanese people, and the families of the military men in such a brutal way.

If we want to restore them alive, we negotiate strongly as a state. This is what we call for. Is there anything wrong in that?

Here I am telling you that negotiating from a weak position would lead to a catastrophe on the military men. If there is hope – and God willing there is a big hope – that these military men return to their families and institutions, that is only possible through a strong, dignified, noble, and responsible stance.

Fourth: I am talking as Hizbullah as we have a long experience in this field. None of the two negotiating sides must announce something and commit itself to it openly. There is nothing of this sort in the world. Well, yes openly, one might raise the ceiling while the other might start from zero. Later on, they would reach a common place. All negotiations over swap operations in the world take place as such except this cause. Why? It's because it has become part of political bargains, and every political side or personality or whatever would say "we accept" and 'we don't accept". Well brother! Tell your government, the authority, or the side entitled to carry negotiations and is responsible of addressing this cause whether you accept or not. However, when such a cause becomes a subject for argument in the media one side would raise the ceiling while the other would lower the ceiling. As such the government would be lost as well as the families of the captives, while the kidnappers would feel as if they are manipulating the country. They are playing with the country. Let's be frank. Lebanon is living true humiliation since weeks because of this political performance by several political forces. Let no one say in the media whether he rejects or does not reject. The concerned side, the government, and the entitled side is the side which must raise or lower the ceilings, act, and convey messages. As such if an announcement is made it would be in the framework of a negotiating plan and not in the framework of the plot of bargains that is present in the country. If such bargains are to carry on as such, I do not believe that any side would be able to negotiate seriously and reach a result as far as this cause is concerned.

As for us, all what was said by politicians is incorrect. It is mere lying. We did not say that the gate of negotiations is locked or that the gate of discussing demands is shut. We talked with the officials in the cabinet, the PM, and the concerned sides and told them that as a side which has ministers in the government our stance is the following. Here I find myself obliged to announce our stance as a result of what is taking place. Our stance is as follows: The negotiating side – whether negotiations are taking place directly or through mediators – must examine the demands of the kidnappers. No one may say I do not want to examine, listen and discuss. If we say negotiations, you have to listen, discuss and examine.

Among these demands which are presented via channels, arguments, and discussions, some points might be acceptable and possible while others are unacceptable and impossible. After all, all of these things are discussed, and there are methodologies to take a decision. However, no one is allowed to say we do not want to negotiate or to listen or to discuss. This is our stance from the very first point and whoever says otherwise would be a deceiver, a liar, and a hypocrite. Allow me to say so because there is political brutality as far as this issue is concerned. Anyway, indeed as a result of killing, the government announced that negotiations are stopped not because it wants to stop negotiations altogether but because it wants to guarantee halting the act of killing. In fact, the Lebanese government and the Lebanese PM have the right to say that they won't negotiate under the pressure of killing and slaughter. Nobody negotiates as such.

Anyway, if such a thing is guaranteed, and the government returned to negotiations, it is logical that negotiations would take place again. It is normal that friends and even foes may be sought. There is no problem in that. There is no problem in listening to demands and discussing them in negotiations. However, succumbing or being threatened by saying "you have 24 hours or the outcome would be slaughter" as they are doing is unacceptable. I do not believe that there is a state or a government or a people or an army or an institution in any place in the world which accepts things to carry on as such. This is for the safety of the military men and not at their expense. Yes, it is for their safety. Yet, they are threatening by slaughtering to make the other side kneel and beg, or else in 24 hours they would slaughter, and this scenario is repeated again and again. Do we want to reach here? Is it the wish of the families to reach here for example?

The last point in the track of addressing this cause is that all around the world – as long as you are saying that we want to deal with this cause as other states and governments – no one deals with a cause of this kind in one track or with one option. He would put forward several options on the table. He sets several scenarios. In case this scenario does not work, he would go for the other. As such he sets several scenarios which he is not concerned in discussing in the media. So he does not resort to one scenario and say that we are not able to do anything. There is nothing of this sort around the world. He must continuously be working and searching. Does Lebanon have other choices? Is it possible to find other scenarios? Well, simply and clearly yes. However, this is not also to be discussed in the media. But because of the bargains in Lebanon, we must go and tell the terrorist kidnappers what we want to do and what we must do. This is not correct in any administration in the world. This is incorrect.

I will go back later to the means of addressing the reactions in a couple of words. However, before this title, I call today to do what we must have done weeks ago. For the sake of the dear kidnapped military men, for the sake of the emotions and dignity of their families, for the sake of the army and the security institutions, for the sake of the country, and for the sake of this people, we must put this cause outside the sphere of bargains, settlements, and point scoring on each other. What was the reason? Who was wrong? Let's put this aside. If we are to open such files, let's talk about the barren mountains of Irsal. Since when are these mountains occupied by them? That took place even before we went to Qusair, to Qalamoun, and Syria. What is the position of this geographical area? What is the role it plays? Who stands behind it? Who is with it? That is a long research. Let's keep this aside. Let's put all bargains aside. Let's say: These men are our brothers, children, fathers, and dear ones. No matter to which family they belong, from which region they are, or to what side they belong, they are the children of the national institution and the state. Let's – all of us as Lebanese – come together and cooperate and take it for granted that there is a definite side with which we may discuss any point we have. Let's not overbid each other and cause sectarian and factional instigations. No one would win anything as such. Let no one believe that through what he is doing he is achieving political and media goals. I am saying so from our concern to the families and the military men. If anyone believes that through distortion, falsification, misleading, and deception they have been practicing in the past few weeks against Hizbullah, they have achieved any political and media achievements, they are mistaken. They have not made any achievements in fact. I wanted to say so not to defend Hizbullah. In fact, I talked as such to say: Let's stop this to work in a proper way to serve this goal and this cause. Let's stand together and support the government in its negotiations, in discussing the demands, in seeing what gates may be opened, and also in putting ready scenarios to confront any unexpected events or developments.

Well, there is something which has to do with wrapping this issue. It has to do with the reactions. Indeed, we have tackled these issues previously. I am not talking about anything new, and I am not making a new call. Following the bombing that took place in Rweiss which led to the martyrdom and injury of scores or people – and not killing one or two soldiers – we tackled this issue. The issue is not that of a number. All of them are our people, our men, our women, and our children. Following that bombing we addressed all of the Lebanese and advised that no one harm any Syrian immigrant as no one is to be punished for the sin of another. No one must be held responsible for the crimes of the terrorists and the Takfiri groups. Following the second, third, and fourth bombing and following the bombing in Hermel we said so too. So this is not something new. Today, I want to assert this point: No innocent person or Syrian immigrant must be harmed. It is not allowed to hold anyone responsible for the crimes of these criminals. This does not need any assertion. This is not allowed by all norms whether humanitarian, moral, religious, legitimate, legal…

I hope that everyone takes what I am saying into consideration. That's because from among the goals of slaughtering and killing the soldiers is that such popular reactions take place against the Syrian immigrant to exploit that politically in sectarian and factional instigation. This must not be allowed to take place. Between parentheses, I would like to say that Hizbullah and Amal Movement - with the cooperation of the apparatuses, the scholars, and tribal and social dignitaries – have exerted industrious efforts to protect the immigrants and pull danger away from them. Still those whom I was talking about a while ago held Hizbullah responsible at a time Hizbullah was protecting and defending the immigrants as well as appeasing the people. Still there comes he who overbids and accuses you as far as this issue is concerned.

The other point I want to tackle as far as reactions are concerned is that in case there is any security suspicion against anyone – this is not limited to the Syrian refugees or immigrants – provide such information thankfully to the security apparatuses which would burst into any suspicious place. Here the security institutions hold fully their responsibilities.

The other point concerning the reaction is counter-kidnapping. Indeed some kidnapping operations take place at times without having anything to do with the kidnapped military men or anything with the reactions on the kidnapping of the military men as what took place some time ago. Such operations have to do with ransoms, stealing, and robbery. These are criminals. These are highwaymen and corruptors. Frankly speaking, it is they who are carrying such operations.

Well, there is another kind of impermissible kidnapping operations. Anyway, there is not permissible and impermissible kidnapping; however, that might at times take place as a reaction as some families do.

Besides saying that such kidnapping is impermissible religiously and legally, I want to tell our people that it is fruitless too. With whom are you dealing? At times there are sides which might be pressured in case you detained or kidnapped. At other times the side might not be concerned with the people, the people of Irsal, the family of so and so, Sunnites, Shiites, Muslims, Christians or the Druze. They do not care for anyone. They kill even each other and slaughter each other, rob each other, and take each other's womenfolk as detainees. So they do not care for what you do? Thus it is fruitless to kidnap so and so to practice pressure on these armed groups. As far as this issue is concerned we have a long experience in Syria and in the cause of Aazaz detainees. I do not want to go far into details. This issue must remain covert. Thus counter-kidnapping is impermissible religiously and legally besides being fruitless. That does not lead anywhere. This is true concerning harming the Syria immigrants as well as concerning counter-kidnapping. Where to do such acts lead? They achieve the goals of the armed forces. The speech of these armed groups is sectarian, factional, instigating, and Takfiri. They seek a sectarian strife in Lebanon; they want a factional ordeal in Lebanon; they want people to fight each other in Lebanon; and they want to bring the battle into Lebanon. It is they and not we. Between parentheses some are saying that Hizbullah is pushing the army into the battle in Irsal. Never! It is they who aggressed against the army soldiers who were in their barracks, cross points, and offices. I also want to tell you that the roads are open, the barren mountains are open, food supplies are reaching there, medicine is reaching there, and the wounded of the armed fighters are submitted to the hospitals in Irsal and thereof they are conveyed to hospitals inside Lebanon. Funds are available; arms are being conveyed to Irsal; facilitations are available; no one is holding anyone responsible or trying anyone. Do you want us to remind you of all of these issues? These want to transfer the battle to Lebanon. Here I want to reiterate and to assert to the families of the military men and to all of the Lebanese: What we say in the cabinet we say in the media, and what we say to all officials we say in the media. We do not have double languages, double speeches, double faces, and double tongues. When I say I am with that means that I am with. When I say that I am against, that means that I am against. Since the very first day when we went to Quseir, I made an announcement of that. Some presidents and officials blamed me saying that if you want to go to Quseir go without making an announcement. But no we want to announce. Why shouldn't we announce? At that day, I said whoever wants to fight let him go to Syria where there is a battlefield. Let's fight there. Let's keep Lebanon aside. However, some argued this logic. Well no! This is a well-calculated and well-considered logic because we do not want a problem in Lebanon and we do not want fighting in Lebanon. We do not want the war to be transferred to Lebanon. It's the armed forces which want to transfer the war to Lebanon and are seeking day and night to transfer the war to Lebanon. It is not we at all who are doing so. That's why we never opened the file of Irsal. We never tackled the issue of the armed forces, the facilitations offered to the armed men, or the position of Irsal regarding what is taking place in the region. Well yes, when the booby-trapped cars started coming from Irsal, we called on the army and the security forces to take the necessary procedures: Just prevent the booby-trapped cars from coming from there. We never ignited any instigation. We do not want such a battle. We hope that no battle would ever take place inside the Lebanese territories. We can tolerate much to observe this commitment. Thus when any counter-kidnapping or any aggression takes place against the immigrants or any such problems take place that would be achieving the goals of the terrorists and the killers. That's because they are seeking sedition and moving the battle to Lebanon. It is not to the interest of the Lebanese that the fighting be moved to Lebanon.

In general, what is required is controlling emotions, feelings, and reactions, avoiding harming the innocent, and guarding the social and national composition. Thereof, everyone is responsible and a partner in sharing the responsibility. As for the military men and what they are being subject to, there are concerned sides, a state, officials, and the court. These sides are concerned about trying and punishing, and we are concerned in being behind the state and supporting it on this perspective.

This is the first point which I wanted to tackle. Briefly to benefit from the available time, I want to wrap this point saying really Lebanon is before a true challenge. Well, let's see how this state, this government, and these political forces would act. This is what we call for today. Later on and when this cause would come to an end and the military men return safe and sound other things may be said. Whether we would talk or not has to do with the atmosphere and the developments. That's because being responsible we do not act in reaction. We are not talking in reaction of what is taking place. We talk to rectify things because it is wrong and dangerous to move along as such as far as this humanitarian, national, and moral issue is concerned.

The second topic has to do with the developments in the region and the stance from the international coalition – the so called international coalition to fight the "ISIL".

Indeed we are concerned in specifying our stance from it - our stance as a resistance and as a side – via our ministers in the Lebanese government. We also have to specify our stance to wipe away the distortion and falsification that have come upon this stance. In case some people were not able to understand and to comprehend, this would be their own problem and not ours. Still, we will clarify and explain our stance because this too is a historical and critical moment.

First: Everyone knows that Hizbullah is against the "ISIL". Some two months ago I have talked extensively on this. We are against those Takfiri movements, and we are fighting them too. We are offering sacrifices in fighting them. So first we must put aside what some are saying to the effect of our stance from the international coalition as being to defend or to protect "ISIL". This is simplification and misleading of the facts. So it is either simplification because of ignorance or intended misleading of facts. No, that is not the case. I have tackled the issue of "ISIL" extensively at several occasions in the past. As for us, "ISIL" are groups that kill and slaughter merely because of intellectual and political or organizational disparity. They pose a threat to all the peoples, governments, and sects. So they do not pose a threat to the minorities only but rather to all the peoples of the region. Thus our stance from these Takfiri terrorist groups is clear, firm, and final. It is obligatory to fight them, confront them, and push their danger away from the peoples of the region and the region too.

However, the issue of the US military intervention or the formation of an international coalition led by the USA is another issue. This issue must be tackled from several perspectives.

First, we have a primary stance whether America came to attack "ISIL" or to attack Taliban or to attack the former Iraqi regime or to attack any other place. In principle, we are not like the others who say they are with the US intervention and call for the US intervention to topple the so and so regime for example. However, if the US intervention was solely to attack "ISIL" or to attack their groups, they are against it. No, we are against the US military intervention and against the international coalition in Syria, whether the target is the regime – as was the case a year and a half again - or the "ISIL" or other groups. Primary, there is a principle called the US intervention whether under the cover of an international coalition or the cover of the NATO or the cover of multi-national troops.

We have a primary stance based on rules and pillars, and it does not change from one arena and another. As a result of our commitment to this primary stance, we were harmed by some in previous incidents and cases. Thus first because of our primary commitment we do not agree on this coalition. We have said so in the cabinet via our ministers and other friends. So when we are to vote in the cabinet, as Hizbullah, we will say that we do not accept that Lebanon be part of this coalition.

However, if Lebanon partakes in conferences and meetings, that would be something else. That would be the concern of the government, the President of the Republic, the Premier, and the foreign minister. However, the commitments are discussed in the cabinet. We say that we have a primary principle. Why do we have this primary principle?

Let's take the developments into consideration:

First: America is the mother of terrorism. Whoever wants to argue, we are ready for argument. America is the source of terrorism in the world. If there is terrorism in this world, search for the US administration behind it. Indeed, we are not talking about the US people.

Second: America is the ultimate supporter of terrorist Zionist entity. The source of terrorism in our region is the existence of (the State of "Israel") which attains absolute US support whether militarily, security, political, economic, financial, or legal. In the Security Council, even condemning or the right of veto is not allowed when it comes to "Israel".

Third: The US fabricated or played a role in fabricating these terrorist Takfiri movements.

Fourth: America is not in the moral position that entitles it to lead a war against terrorism. In fact, it never once had a moral position. The side that struck Japan with nuclear bombs, committed atrocities in the Vietnam War, has all of this dark history, stood next to Netanyahu in the 50-day-war against Gaza and the people of Gaza, demolishes, kills thousands, wounds thousands, and displaces tens of thousands from their houses is not morally eligible to present itself as a fighter of terrorism or as a leader of an international coalition to target terrorism.

The issue has nothing to do with fighting terrorism.

Fifth: Based on all of Obama's statements, this coalition aims at defending the US interests. What have we to do with defending the US interests especially that most of these interests – if not all of the US interests come at the expense of the interests of the region and the peoples of the region and the governments of the region.

Are we, Lebanon, or other states to be a part of a coalition led by the USA in a war to defend the US interests in the region? This is what Obama says. I am not fabricating lies against him.

He did not say we came here to defend the minorities or the Muslims or the Christians. Never! This never took place before the eyes of the entire world. For years by now – and not only in the past few months – he did not take any action.

Well yes, when the situation became dangerous enough to the extent of harming the US interests, the US administration came to create a cover and an international coalition. We are not concerned in fighting in an international coalition of this kind or to support an international coalition of this kind that serves the US interests apart from the interests of the peoples.

Sixth: The Lebanese, Iraqis, Syrians, as well as all the peoples of the region have the right to question the US intentions through this awareness and this awakening. He wants to gather the world and form an international coalition. In fact, he had formed an international coalition and wants to lead the war, and today he started this war.

Is it true that now the Americans woke up and their humanitarian emotions got moved thus they were shocked by the slaughtering, the massacres, the displacement of people from their homes, the demolishing of churches, mosques, and shrines, and the crucifixion of people? Did they wake up now? Did their humanitarian emotions lead them to this coalition or this is a pretext or an excuse for America to occupy the region again or to form military bases the Iraqis had refused previously and now it is its chance to restore to Iraq again or to the region in some states again or to impose such choices?

I only want to remind the Lebanese that this issue was evoked previously. On the first days of July 2006 War, when we used to receive messages and there were mediators to stop the war, we were made this offer: Hand all of the arms of the resistance, hand the two "Israeli" captives unconditionally, and thirdly – which is most important - accept the existence of multinational forces – not the UNIFIL or the UN - in the south, along the Lebanese-Palestinian borders, along the Lebanese-Syrian borders, in the airport, at the ports, and on the Lebanese territories. We rejected this in July War and toppled this scheme with blood, martyrs, patience, tears, wounds, sorrows, and solidarity.

Who says they do not want to impose this again when we become part of the international coalition? As soon as you become part of this international coalition, your airport, ports, skies, waters, and territories would be open for them to make military bases for NATO and the USA? What would become of Lebanon then?

Don't the Lebanese have the right to be suspicious as the Iraqis are very much suspicious that the goal from this awareness and from this concern expressed by the Americans is the return to impose military bases – what the Iraqis refused previously? The Americans want to return and form military barracks, bases, and airports. They want to impose their conditions and achieve immunities to their soldiers and officers as what they did in South Korea and other places.

For all of these reasons and others too we say that we do not support and we also refuse that Lebanon be part of the international coalition led by the USA. Lebanon does not need to be part of this coalition. First that is not to the interest of Lebanon. Lebanon would be subject to dangers in case it became part of this international coalition. I am not talking pursuant to the principle of staying away so that they won't say that this is inappropriate. No! This is a totally different idea. The disintegration among them is clear. There are dangers in case Lebanon becomes part of this coalition. Second, Lebanon does not need this coalition. It does not need to be part of this coalition. It has no interest in that.

It might be said that we are facing this danger now in Lebanon. The Lebanese are able to face this danger. As Lebanese we are able to confront the terrorists and terrorism. Despite the political division, the political overbids, instigations and all of what I talked about in the future, Lebanon is still able to confront this danger. With the least degree of harmony and with the least degree of cooperation within the Lebanese government – this current government – Lebanon is able to confront this danger through its army, military apparatuses, people, steadfastness, and patience. In the future too, we as Lebanese are able to confront this danger.

What are we in need of? If anyone is to call on the international community or the USA or the members of the new coalition, we would call for the following:

First, I call on everyone and not only on them to stop financing and arming the terrorist groups which are targeting Lebanon and the Lebanese interior. I do not want to talk about Syria and Iraq. I am talking about Lebanon. I am talking on the Lebanese national level.

Stop arming, funding, training, and dispatching fighters who are targeting Lebanon. This is still taking place to our day and from among states in this coalition. Let this stop if you want to serve Lebanon. Do you want to serve Lebanon? Is your heart aching for the Lebanese and the Lebanese people? Do you want to defend Lebanon against terrorism? First do this.

Second: Speed up in supporting the Lebanese Army and the security forces because we bargain on them. This is the responsibility of the state in the first place.

Third: Help Lebanon in resolving the crisis of the refugees. When the crisis of the refugees is addressed, the danger of the terrorists and terrorism would be kept off to a great extent. It would also spare Lebanon many ordeals and crises.

If anyone wants to help Lebanon, let him help Lebanon in the framework of these three topics.

First: Stop funding and arming the terrorists.

Second: Speed up in supporting and arming the Lebanese Army and the security forces.

Third: Address the crisis of the refugees.

As for the Lebanese, they are able to confront any danger which may target them.

In the near past, they gathered the military hostages in one place and a person stood among them and bragged saying: "If we want, we can be in Beirut within days." No! You can't be in Beirut or in any other place. I do not want to name villages and regions. Through the state, army, solidarity, national emotions, and national responsibility, the Lebanese can protect all the Lebanese regions. All the Lebanese areas will be protected against any terrorism danger, and I mean what I say.

Any Lebanese region does not concern a definite sect, faction, or side. This is a Lebanese territory; this is Lebanese people; these are Lebanese people. All the Lebanese must be one hand to prevent the expansion of terrorism to any of the Lebanese regions.

I reiterate saying that in the first place the government, the state, the army, and all of us must be one hand against the state, the government, and the army. It is not allowed to act according to the principle that "we are not concerned" in case the terrorism military expanded towards any region under the pretext that this is not our sect, this is not our region, and this is not our political side. This is a mistake. It is a fatal mistake in fact.
The Lebanese must come together, unite, and be one hand. In fact, they can push the threat of the terrorists and the Takfiri groups away from their country. The Lebanese are strong. We are not weak. No one can threat us by invading, controlling, or reaching Beirut or any other region. We are still alive, and no one can intimidate the Lebanese in such a way. We will assume our responsibilities as I used to tell you in the past.

In the remaining few moments, I will briefly tackle definite topics though these topics deserve some elaboration.

No doubt the region is moving towards important developments in the coming few weeks. What is taking place in Iraq? What is taking place in Syria? The new military operation was launched. We in Lebanon and in the region are concerned in following all of this precisely and cautiously and consequently assume our responsibilities.

Praise be to Allah! Summer is over. No one is to say he wants to take a vacation to spend the summer somewhere. Everyone must be alert, aware, and follow the developments because it is not known where these developments would lead to. We have our analysis and views on these events, but we do not have enough time to explain that. I will only call for being aware, cautious, alert, follow the events, and assume responsibilities.

Second: As it is the first time I talk since a period of time, I offer my felicitations to the heroic resistance in Gaza, the Palestinian people, the people of Gaza as well as its martyrs, injured, and brave fighters, and the prisons of the Palestinian people on this great victory which was achieved. No doubt, it is an absolute strong, great, important military victory. It is also a great political victory because it crippled all the covert and overt targets of the "Israeli" aggression against Gaza.

We felicitate them on this victory which we view as a victory for the entire nation, for all the Palestinian people, for all the peoples of the region, and for all the resistance movements in the region.

Third: Before these recent developments which took place in Yemen, we also must felicitate the dear Yemeni people for this reconciliation. The National Peace and Partnership Agreement – as I believe they called it - is an exceptional opportunity before the Yemeni people. It is a historic opportunity to pull Yemen out of its complicated problems as it eliminates those who were behind the domestic war and aggressions. The regional states have also welcomed this agreement. We are glad when any people reach an agreement, a national reconciliation, and a political resolution. We listen to this marvelous, great national address made by responsible Yemeni leaderships. Praise be to Allah! That really is promising. We hope Inshallah that no one seeks to cripple this agreement, and that all the Yemenis and all those who care for Yemen would seek to help the Yemeni people to implement and enforce this agreement.

Fourth: We hail the Bahraini people's continuing peaceful movement and their tolerance of all the repercussions and sacrifices. We hope that this people will achieve their goals and that the regional and international developments which may advance in some places would help this people in achieving their aspirations and targets. As a part of the peoples of the region, as part of this nation, as part of this body that aches when any other part aches, that feels happy when the others are happy and suffers when the others suffer, we as a political side has an aspiration. We hope that the Lebanese people, the Syrian people, the Iraqi people, the Bahraini people, the Yemeni people, and all the peoples of the region - I will not name all the peoples of the region. Though I try not to approach some places in my political speech or discussion because of the existing sensitivities, however at least I specify those with whom we share geographical proximity – would be able to transcend their catastrophes and sufferings. We hope that through their leaderships, historic awareness, assumption of responsibilities, sacrifices, perseverance, and steadfastness, these peoples would be able to turn these threats into opportunities. Today, the region is before a great threat. This threat may be turned to a great opportunity. However, that is dependent on the determination, awareness, and assumption of responsibility. Allah has men who when they wish He wishes.

Peace be upon you, and Allah's mercy and blessings.

September 26th Press Conference of Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov at the UN in NY

Iraq SITREP Update 26th September: Enemy of my enemy

NB: These SITREPs that Saker allows to be posted here will now be twice a week. Significant news events will be posted, recurring ones like the repeated failed attempts to take back a city, like Tikrit by the Iraqi military, will be avoided; unless there are other repercussions to that event. Also body counts are too depressing to keep reporting and there are other sources that list the everyday dead of Iraq.

The Saker has been very kind to allow these SITREPs from the start. I am grateful for his efforts and his commitment.

As always these are compilations of news stories from the MSM and non MSM sources. If I express an opinion commentators are welcome to question them, and in some extreme 'Takfiri' cases, my faith as well.
-------

30th Aug: The Iranians claim progress is being made on developing an indigenous alternative to the S300: http://rt.com/news/183856-bavar373-missile-iran-s300/
The Israelis finger Belarus: http://www.jpost.com/Features/Front-Lines/Iranian-Threat-Belarus-brotherhood-with-Iran
17th Sep: The Islamic practices of Daash: Four minor Yazidi girls are transferred to Mosul Hospital after sever Uterine Bleeding. The girls were reported to have been subjected to repeated sexual assault by "brave" Daash terrorists.
18th Sep: There will be blood: Daash vehicles roam the streets of Mosul calling for blood donations as Daash casualties mount.
20th Sep: Daash releases 49 Turkish hostages including the counsel general of Turkey in Iraq. However, Turkey refuses to participate in coalition airstrikes on Daash.
21st Sep: More than a 100000 Kurds are reported to be fleeing a Daash onslaught in north east Syria with the Kurdish city of Kobani coming under attack. The refugees head north towards Turkey.
22nd Sep: The US and its alliance of the willing (GCC excluding Kuwait and Oman, and non GCC member Jordan, a total of 30 countries) start to bomb Daash targets in Syria. Prior warning is given to the Government of Bashar Al Assad and an Iranian lawmaker states that Iran was also informed about the air assaults on Daash.
US airplanes also target Al Nusra Front positions and also those of the "Khorrasan" terrorist group.
The US authorities state that a female pilot from the UAE also participated in the airstrikes on Daash.
Belgium and The Netherlands send their F16 fighters and Belgium asks its military personnel not to wear their uniforms when not on duty out of fears of retaliatory attacks.
22nd Sep: Daash tries and executes Samira Salih al-Nuaimi, a lawyer and rights activists, on charges of Apostasy for having criticised the DI of Daash's destruction of shrines and mosques in Mosul. Torture marks are clearly visible on her corpse.
23rd Sep: Brigadier General, Ahmad Reza Bordstan, of the Iranian Ground Forces clarifies that Iran will launch a much more penetrating assault on Daash positions in response to any attack on Iran's border with Iraq.
24th Sep: Daash carries out a heavy assault on Baiji refinery. It involves three car bombings and blow up tankers using a suicide bomber. The military personnel protecting the refinery are backed by the Iraqi Airforce but suffer heavy casualties. Senior military commanders warn of a repeat of Spykar if the government does not degrade Daash's capability to assault the refinery.
24th Sep: The US led coalition starts to bomb Daash positions on the outskirts of Kobani in Northern Syria.
24th Sep: Kurdish forces warn of the fleeing of Daash fighters from Syria to Iraq and ask the US led coalition to bomb Daash convoys entering Iraq.
24th Sep: Iraqi Security Forces and Peshmergas work in coordination in Qara Tapa, north east of Baqouba, Diyala to clear villages of Daash presence
24th Sep: Hassan Nasrallah states that he is opposed to the US led coalition that is bombing Daash. He stated that the Hezbollah fought the "infidel" Daash and will continues to do so, but referred to the US as the "mother of terrorism"
24th Sep: German ammunition, anti tank weapons and assault rifles arrive in Iraqi Kurdistan
24th Sep: An Algerian terrorist group with links to Daash beheads French hiker Herve Gourdel after the Afrench Government refuses to stop its participation in the coalition of the willing.
25th Sep: Rouhani blames the West and it's allies (certain intelligence agencies: CIA) of creating Daash, refers to it as a global threat and asks the west to stop supporting dictators.
25th Sep: Two bombings in Baghdad leave 6 dead and 18 wounded
25th Sep: France confirms that it has carried out its first airstrikes on Daash positions in Iraq. The UK is expected to join the coalition of the willing soon.
25th Sep: The UAE claims that its woman pilot, Mariam Al -Mansouri, took part in its raid on Daash positions. Daash vows revenge.
25th Sep: Kurdish forces in Syria repel an assault on Kobani.
25th Sep: Jassim Mohammed Hassan al-Attiyah of the Salah al Din provincial council states that over 13000 US troops are expected at the Speicher Military Base. This is contrary to what Obama has stated, what Prime Minister Abadi has asked for, and what Sadr and Sistani have clearly opposed.
25th Sep: Daash blows up the historic Al Arbain mosque in Tikrit.
26th Sep: Bombing of Daash positions to the North and to the West of Mosul: Sinjar and Zammar has continued for three days ands ongoing. The "coalition of the willing" is bombing the monster it helped create.
26th Sep: Iranian expert refers to US assault on Daash as America's plan B: http://www.almanar.com.lb/english/adetails.php?fromval=2&cid=19&frid=21&seccatid=19&eid=172896


Arabian Nights, night 2: the downfall of Ali Duba:

Reports suggest that Ali Duba was sidelined to make way for Bashar to take over power in Syria. However, a Syrian tale goes like this:

Hafiz Al Assad was having trouble with a senior member of the Muslim Brotherhood and asked his intelligence chief to get rid of the man. Ali Duba however, was made an offer of a large sum of money to let the man slip into exile. Duba took the money and the brotherhood man fled to Germany. Hafiz was assured that the man was with his maker.

Years later, the same man was terminally ill and dying. Away from home, he longed to return. His people approached Ali Duba and offered an even larger pot of gold to the let the man die in Syria. For this, Ali Duba had to approach Hafiz and it is then that Hafiz learnt of his instructions not being carried out. Ali Duba was no longer a trusted man.


Short Analysis: Are the Houthis linked to Iran?

Some commentators suggested that Iran is in no way involved in the Houthi uprising in Yemen, or in Bahrain. Although claims and allegations that Iran is backing rebels in Yemen and Bahrain play into the hands of the Empire, there is a grain of truth to them.

Iran has come under attack, with its embassy staff being kidnapped and shot in Yemen. The now deposed President had also accused Iran of meddling, which Iran denied. Saudi Arabia has also at one point in history been allied to the Zaidis in Yemen against the communist South. Saudi Arabia has more recently been paranoid and accused Iran of backing the Houthis. So why say Iran is siding with them now?

1) A religious argument

Islam in General, and the Shia faith in particular underwent a transformation with the events of Karbala. The Sacrifice of the Grandson of the Prophet reminds the Shia to oppose oppression, and to refrain from it too. While the Sunnis have generally been more pro establishment throughout history, it is the Shia that have resisted over time and over geographic distances. A reading of Shia history after the events of Karbala will show that in every few decades a Shia uprising has taken place against oppressive government.

Iran, perceiving itself to be the centre of the Shia faith, backs its co-religionists in, to name a few places, Kashmir, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, and Nigeria. It even backs opposition to oppression against Muslims in General (Sunnis) in other places: Sudan, Bosnia, Kurds in Iraq, and the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan. It sees this as a religious purpose. Although, the Iranian revolutionary "Islamic" state was more aggressive in the past it has become much more pragmatic, but also a lot more tenacious and politically astute.

So why would Iran not back the Houthis and Bahraini Shias, in the latter case morally if not with material aid (physical, geographic restrictions, the invasion of the island by Saudi troops, and the US Naval base prevent Iran from giving more direct support; However, if Bahrain shared a land border with Iran, weapons would be smuggled across). Not supporting them on Iran's part would be contrary to common sense.

2) A practical understanding

No guerrilla movement survives for long against a government backed by foreign powers for long without external support. A case in point is the Hezbollah. Even though it is a very powerful, if not the most powerful, resistance militia, it cannot survive or wield as much power as it does without Iranian/Syrian support. Similar examples are the Taliban, which no one can defeat as long as the Pakistani state continues to back it.

Although the Houthis may be a majority in the north, how long can they sustain a conflict without material help? Yes everybody in Yemen is armed, but where do you replenish stocks from and sustain an offensive? Why would Saudi Arabia allow the deposed President to negotiate a deal if did not feel threatened?

Now consider the Tibetan resistance against China that withered away after all India did was provide vocal support. The North Vietnamese had Chinese and Soviet support, the rebels in Syria have petrodollars backing them, the MEK had US/Israeli support after Saddam was overthrown. In fact it's hard to point out to any opposition group that can last without external backing.

3) Coincidence: there are none

The first coincidence is the timing of the Houthi takeover. It conveniently occurred after Daash has taken over most of Sunni Iraq.
The second coincidence is form. In this 2010 article by Bhadrakumar: http://www.countercurrents.org/bhadrakumar180110.htm. He mentions that the Houthi armed groups are being modelled on the Lebanese Hezbollah.

Finally, to cut things short, I will agree that there is a remote possibility, a completely illogical one, that Iran is not involved in some way with the Houthis. But it is possible.

Further Reading:

US intelligence flying blind when it comes to the Hezballah
www.scmp.com/news/world/article/1300844/us-spies-knowledge-gaps-china-hezbollah-revealed

"The information war for Ukraine" - Satirical German program "Die Anstalt" (Eng Subs)

(press on the 'cc' button on the lower right to see the subtitles)

The Threat of War and the Russian Response

by Sergey Glazyev for Russia in Global Affairs

How to Lead a Coalition and Avoid a Global Conflict 
 
Sergei Glaziev is an Advisor to the President of the Russian Federation, Full Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

Summary: The world needs a coalition of sound forces advocating stability – a global anti-war coalition with a positive plan for rearranging the international financial and economic architecture on the principles of mutual benefit, fairness, and respect for national sovereignty.

U.S. actions in Ukraine should be classified not only as hostile with regard to Russia, but also as targeting global destabilization. The U.S. is essentially provoking an international conflict to salvage its geopolitical, financial, and economic authority. The response must be systemic and comprehensive, aimed at exposing and ending U.S. political domination, and, most importantly, at undermining U.S. military-political power based on the printing of dollars as a global currency.

The world needs a coalition of sound forces advocating stability —in essence, a global anti-war coalition with a positive plan for rearranging the international financial and economic architecture on the principles of mutual benefit, fairness, and respect for national sovereignty.

CURBING THE ARBITRARINESS OF RESERVE CURRENCY ISSUERS

This coalition could be comprised of large independent states (BRICS); the developing world (most of Asia, Africa, and Latin America), which has been discriminated against in the current global financial and economic system; CIS countries interested in balanced development without conflicts; and those European nations not prepared to obey the disparaging U.S. diktat. The coalition should take measures to eliminate the fundamental causes of the global crisis, including:

• the uncontrolled issuance of global reserve currencies, which allows issuers to abuse their dominant position, thus increasing disproportions and destructive tendencies in the global financial and economic system;
• the inability of existing mechanisms regulating banking and financial institutions to ward off excessive risks and financial bubbles;
• an exhausted potential for growth within the prevailing technology-based economic system and lack of conditions for creating a new one, including insufficient investment for the broad use of basic technological solutions.

Conditions must be created to allow the national fiscal authorities to lend money for building an economy based on new technologies and carrying out economic modernization, and to encourage innovation and business activities in areas of potential growth. The issuers of reserve currencies must guarantee their stability by capping the national debt and payment and trade balance deficits. Also, they will have to use transparent mechanisms for issuing currencies and ensure free exchange for all assets trading in their countries.

Another important requirement issuers of global reserve currencies should meet is compliance with fair rules of competition and non-discriminatory access to financial markets. Other countries observing similar restrictions should be able to use their national currencies as an instrument of foreign trade and currency and financial exchanges, and allow their use as reserve currencies by partner countries. It would be advisable to group national currencies seeking the status of global or regional reserves into several categories depending on the issuers’ compliance with certain standards.

In addition to introducing rules for issuers of global reserve currencies, measures should be taken to strengthen control over capital flows to prevent speculative attacks that destabilize international and national currency and financial systems. Members of the coalition will need to forbid transactions with offshore jurisdictions and make refinancing inaccessible to banks and corporations created with offshore residents. The currencies of countries that fail to follow these rules should not be used in international settlements.

A major overhaul of international financial institutions is necessary to ensure control over the issuers of global reserve currencies. Participating countries must be represented fairly, on objective criteria, such as their share in global production, trade, and finances; their natural resources; and population. The same criteria should be applied to an emerging basket of currencies for new SDRs (Special Drawing Rights) that can be used as a yardstick for determining the value of national currencies, including reserve currencies. Initially, the basket could contain the currencies of those coalition members that agree to observe these rules.

Such ambitious reforms will require proper legal and institutional support. To this end, the coalition’s decisions should be given the status of international commitments; and UN institutions, relevant international organizations, and all countries interested in reforms should be broadly involved.

In order to encourage application of socially important achievements of a new technological mode globally, countries will have to devise an international strategic planning system of socio-economic development. It should provide long-term forecasts for scientific and technological development; define prospects for the global economy, regional associations and leading countries; look for ways to overcome disproportions, including development gaps between industrialized and emerging economies; and set development priorities and indicative targets for international organizations.

The U.S. and other G7 countries will most likely reject the above proposals for reforming the international currency and financial system without discussion out of fear that they could undermine their monopoly, which allows them to issue world currencies uncontrollably. While reaping enormous benefits from this system, leading Western countries limit access to their own assets, technologies, and labor by imposing more and more restrictions.

If the G7 refuses to “make room” in the governing agencies of international financial organizations for the anti-war coalition, the latter should master enough synergy to create alternative global regulators.

• The BRICS could serve as a prototype and take the following measures to maintain economic security:
• create a universal payment system for BRICS countries and issue a common payment card that would incorporate China’s UnionPay, Brazil’s ELO, India’s RuPay, and Russian payment systems;
• build an interbank information exchange system similar to SWIFT and which is independent from the United States and the European Union;
• establish its own rating agencies.

RUSSIA AS UNWILLING LEADER

Russia will have a leading role in building a coalition against the U.S. since it is most vulnerable and will not succeed in the ongoing confrontation without such an alliance. If Russia fails to show initiative, the anti-Russian bloc currently being created by the U.S. will absorb or neutralize Russia’s potential allies. The war against Russia the U.S. is inciting in Europe may benefit China, because the weakening of the U.S., the European Union, and Russia will make it easier for Beijing to achieve global leadership. Also, Brazil could give in to U.S. pressure and India may focus on solving its own domestic problems.

Russia has as much experience of leadership in world politics as the U.S. It has the necessary moral and cultural authority and sufficient military-technical capabilities. But Russian public opinion needs to overcome its inferiority complex, regain a sense of historical pride for the centuries of efforts to create a civilization that brought together numerous nations and cultures and which many times saved Europe and humanity from self-extermination. It needs to bring back an understanding of the historical role the Russian world played in creating a universal culture from Kievan Rus’, the spiritual heir to the Byzantine Empire, to the Russian Federation, the successor state of the Soviet Union and the Russian Empire. Eurasian integration processes should be presented as a global project to restore and develop the common space of nations from Lisbon to Vladivostok, and from St. Petersburg to Colombo, which for centuries lived and worked together.

A SOCIAL-CONSERVATIVE SYNTHESIS

A new world order could be based on a concept of social-conservative synthesis as an ideology that combines the values of world religions with the achievements of the welfare state and the scientific paradigm of sustainable development. This concept should be used as a positive program for building an anti-war coalition and establishing universally understandable principles for streamlining and harmonizing social, cultural, and economic relations worldwide.

International relations can be harmonized only on the basis of fundamental values shared by all major cultures and civilizations. These values include non-discrimination (equality) and mutual acceptance, a concept declared by all confessions without dividing people into “us” and “them.” These values can be expressed in notions of justice and responsibility, and in the legal forms of human rights and freedoms.

The fundamental value of an individual and equality of all people irrespective of their religious, ethnic, class, or other background must be recognized by all confessions. This stems, at least in monotheistic religions, from the perception of the unity of God and the fact that every faith offers its own path to salvation. This outlook can eliminate violent religious and ethnic conflicts and permit every individual to make a free choice. But there must be legal mechanisms in place to enable confessions to participate in public life and resolve social conflicts.

This approach will help neutralize one of the most destructive means of chaotic global warfare employed by the U.S.—the use of religious strife to incite religious and ethnic conflicts that develop into civil and regional wars.

The role of religion in molding international politics will provide the moral and ideological basis for preventing ethnic conflicts and resolving ethnic contradictions using national social policy instruments. Various religions can also be engaged in charting social policy, thus providing a moral framework for government decisions, restraining the attitude of permissiveness and laxity that dominates the minds of the ruling elites in developed countries, and bringing back an understanding of the authorities’ social responsibility to society. As the shaken values of the welfare state gain strong ideological support, political parties will have to acknowledge the importance of moral restrictions that protect the basic principles of human life.

The concept of social-conservative synthesis will lay the ideological groundwork for reforming international currency, financial, and economic relations on the principles of fairness, mutual respect for national sovereignty, and mutually advantageous exchanges. This will require certain restrictions on the freedom of market forces that constantly discriminate against most people and countries by limiting their access to wealth.

Liberal globalization has undermined the ability of countries to influence the distribution of national income and wealth. Transnational corporations uncontrollably move resources that were previously controlled by national governments. The latter have to trim back social security in order to keep their economies attractive to investors. State social investments, the recipients of which no longer have a national identity, have lost their potency. As the U.S.-centered oligarchy gets hold of an increasingly greater part of income generated by the global economy, the quality of life is dwindling in open economies and the gap in access to public wealth is widening. In order to overcome these destructive tendencies, it will be necessary to change the entire architecture of financial and economic relations and restrict the free movement of capital. This should be done in order to prevent transnationals from evading social responsibility, on the one hand, and to even out social policy costs shared by national states, on the other.

The former means eliminating offshore jurisdictions, which help evade tax obligations, and recognizing the nation states’ right to regulate transborder movement of capital. The latter would mean establishing minimal social criteria to ensure accelerated improvement of social security in relatively poor countries. This can be done by creating international mechanisms for balancing out living standards, which, in turn, will require proper funding.

Acting along the concept of a social-conservative synthesis, the anti-war coalition could move to reform the global social security system. A fee of 0.01 percent of currency exchange operations could provide funding for international mechanisms designed to even out living standards. This fee (of up to $15 trillion a year) could be charged under an international agreement and national tax legislation, and transferred to the authorized international organizations which include the Red Cross (prevention of and response to humanitarian catastrophes caused by natural disasters, wars, epidemics, etc.); the World Health Organization (prevention of epidemics, reduction of infantile mortality, vaccination, etc.); ILO (global monitoring of compliance with safety regulations and labor legislation, including wages not less than the subsistence level and a ban on the use of child and compulsory labor; labor migration); the World Bank (construction of social infrastructure facilities – water supply networks, roads, waste water disposal systems, etc.); UNIDO (transfer of technologies to developing countries); and UNESCO (support of international cooperation in science, education and culture, cultural heritage protection). Spending should be made according to the budgets approved by the UN General Assembly.

Another task to tackle is the creation of a global environmental protection system financed by polluters. This can be done by signing an international agreement establishing across-the-board fines for pollution and earmark them for environmental protection under national legislation and under the supervision of an authorized international organization. Part of this money should be committed to global environmental activities and monitoring. An alternative mechanism can be based on trade in pollution quotas under the Kyoto Protocol.

An important aspect is the creation of a global system for eliminating illiteracy and ensuring public access to information and modern education throughout the world. This will require standardizing minimum requirements for comprehensive primary and secondary education and subsidizing underdeveloped countries with revenue generated by the tax mentioned above. There must be a universally accessible system of higher education services provided by leading universities in major industrialized countries. The latter could assign admission quotas for foreign students selected through international contests and paid for from the same source. Simultaneously, the participating universities could set up a global system of free distance learning for all individuals with secondary education. UNESCO and the World Bank could commit themselves to creating and supporting the necessary information infrastructure, while drawing funds from the same source.

ANTI-CRISIS HARMONIZATION OF THE WORLD ORDER

The growing gap between rich and poor countries is threatening the development and the very existence of humanity. The gap is created and sustained by national institutions in the U.S. and allied countries that arrogate certain international economic exchange functions proceeding from their own interests. They have monopolized the right to issue the world’s currency and use the revenue for their own benefit, giving their banks and corporations unlimited access to loans. They have monopolized the right to establish technical standards, thus maintaining technological supremacy of their industry. They have imposed upon the world their own international trade rules that require all other countries to open up their markets and limit substantially their own ability to influence the competitiveness of their national economies. Finally, they have forced the majority of countries to open up their capital markets, thus ensuring the domination of their own financial tycoons, who keep multiplying their wealth by exercising a currency monopoly.

It is impossible to ensure a sustainable and successful socio-economic development without eliminating the monopoly on international economic exchange used for private or national interests. Global and national restrictions can be imposed to support sustainable development, harmonizing global public affairs, and eliminating discrimination in international economic relations.

In order to ward off a global financial catastrophe, urgent measures need to be taken to create both a new, safe, and efficient currency and a financial system based on the mutually advantageous exchange of national currencies. This new system would exclude the appropriation of global seniority in private or national interests.

To level out socio-economic development opportunities, emerging economies need free access to new technologies, conditioned on their promise not to use them for military purposes. Countries that agree to such restrictions and open up information about their defense budgets will be exempted from international export control constraints and receive assistance in acquiring new developmental technologies.

An international mechanism to prevent multinational companies from abusing their monopoly power on the market could ensure fair competition. The WTO could exercise anti-trust control under a special agreement binding for all member states. This would allow economic entities to demand elimination of monopoly power abuses by transnational corporations and seek compensation for losses from such abuses by imposing sanctions against the entities at fault. Apart from overstated or understated prices, quality falsifications, and other typical examples of unfair competition, the payment of wages below the ILO-defined minimum regional subsistence level should also be regarded as an abuse. In addition, there should be reasonable price regulation for the products and services of global and regional natural monopolies.

Because of unequal economic exchanges, countries should be allowed to retain the right to regulate their national economies in order to equalize socio-economic development levels. In addition to WTO mechanisms protecting domestic markets from unfair foreign competition, such equalizing measures could also be achieved by encouraging scientific and technological progress and providing state support to innovation and investment activities; establishing a state monopoly on the use of natural resources; introducing currency controls to limit capital flight and prevent speculative attacks on national currencies; retaining government control over strategic industries; and using other mechanisms to boost competitiveness.

Fair competition in the IT sector is essential. Access to the global information networks must be guaranteed to all people throughout the world as both information consumers and suppliers. This market can be kept open by using stringent antitrust restrictions that will not allow any one country or group of countries to become dominant.

To ensure that all parties to the global economic exchange observe international and national rules, there must be penalties for violators under an international agreement that would enforce court rulings regardless of their national jurisdiction. However, one should be able to appeal a ruling in an international court whose judgment will be binding on all states.

Binding rules and penalties for non-compliance (alongside penalties for breaking national laws) would give international agreements priority over national legislation. Countries that break this principle should be restricted from participating in international economic activities by excluding their national currencies from international settlements, imposing economic sanctions against residents, and limiting those operations on international markets.

In order to enforce all of these fundamental changes in international relations, a strong coalition will have to be created, capable of overcoming the resistance of the U.S. and G7 countries, which reap enormous benefits from their dominance on global markets and in international organizations. This coalition should be ready to use sanctions against the U.S. and other countries that refuse to recognize the priority of international obligations over national regulations. Rejecting the U.S. dollar in international settlements would be the most effective way to coerce the U.S. into being cooperative.

The anti-war coalition should offer a peaceful alternative to the arms race as a means of encouraging a new round of technological development. This alternative would lie in broad international cooperation geared towards solving global problems that require concentration of resources for creating cutting-edge technologies. For example, there is no ready-made solution to protect the planet from threats stemming from deep space. Developing such solutions will require technological breakthroughs that can be achieved by combining the efforts of leading countries and by sharing costs.

The paradigm of sustainable development rejects war as such. Instead of confrontation and rivalry, it is based on cooperation and collaboration as a means of concentrating resources in promising areas of scientific and technological research. Unlike the arms race provoked by geopolitics, it can provide a better scientific and organizational basis for managing a new technological mode. The latter will drive the development of healthcare, education, and culture, which can hardly be spurred by defense expenditures. These non-productive sectors and science will account for as much as a half of GDP in major industrialized countries in upcoming years. Therefore, a forward-looking solution would include shifting the focus of government attention from defense spending to humanitarian programs, primarily in medicine and bioscience. Since the state pays more than half of health, education, and science expenditures, such a shift would facilitate systematic management of socio-economic development and curb destructive trends.

* * *

A new election cycle will begin in the U.S. in 2017 that is likely to be underscored by anti-Russian rhetoric as the ideological basis for the world war Washington is trying to unleash in a bid to retain its power. By that time, the crisis in the American financial system may have resulted in budget spending cuts, devaluation of the dollar, and declining living standards.

Domestic problems and foreign policy crises will cause the U.S. government to ramp up its aggressive tactics, while at the same time weakening its positions. If Russia mobilizes its intellectual, economic, and military potential, it will have a chance to get through conflicts in 2015-2018 in view of the fact that the U.S. and its allies will still not be prepared for direct aggression.

Russia will face the most dangerous period in the early 2020s when industrialized countries and China are expected to begin their technological modernization and the U.S. and other Western countries will emerge from financial depression and make a technological leap forward. But Russia may dramatically fall behind technologically and economically in 2021-2025, which will impair its defense capabilities and spur internal social and ethnic conflicts in much the same way as what happened in the Soviet Union in the late 1980s. These conflicts will be fomented both from outside and inside, using social inequality, development gaps between regions, and economic problems. In order to avoid the worst possible scenario leading to the disintegration of the country, Russia will need to adopt a systemic domestic and foreign policy for strengthening national security, ensuring economic independence, improving international competitiveness, boosting economic development, mobilizing society, and upgrading the defense industry.

By 2017, when the U.S. starts threatening Russia openly and on all fronts, the Russian army should have modern and effective weapons, Russian society should be consolidated and confident of its strength, intellectuals should be in control of the new technological mode, the economy should be growing, and Russian diplomacy should succeed in building a broad-based anti-war coalition capable of pooling efforts in order to stop American aggression.

Is peace in the Ukraine possible?

by M.Khazin

translation by "G' of М.Хазин, "Может ли быть мир на Украине?"
http://worldcrisis.ru/crisis/1646580
The devaluation of the Ruble and the Yevtushenkov affair have so saturated our mass media that it would seem desirable to stand aside and address a more substantial theme. Namely; under what conditions can the Ukraine know peace? Not just any ‘peace’ but a peace without wholesale disintegration of the country into petty fiefdoms, without a bloodstained dictatorship, without ethnic cleansing and without genocide. In order to answer this question, it is necessary, above all, to look at Kiev and Donetsk.

They should be part of one state. However the 10s of thousands killed and the open exhortations to genocide which have been issued by the dominant political forces in Kiev (for example: the phrase ‘Russians, clear off back to Moscovy’, which is directed at people who are not only currently inhabiting Lugansk and Donetsk but who have lived there for centuries, could be considered, formally from the point of view of international legal norms to fit the definition of genocide and, without doubt, that of ethnic cleansing) render such ‘cohabitation’ within the framework of a usual state simply impossible. The people of Donetsk and Lugansk (we include the Odessa massacre, even though it differs, in part from the others ) will never relinquish their right to justice against those who are guilty of the massacre of civilians and, similarly, the Kievan nationalists are unlikely to stop uttering phrases of the sort: ‘ We’ve barbecued that [Colorado Beetle] bitch.’ or other such endearments.

In theory the only way that Kiev can go back to normal would be in the context of sustained economic growth. In that case it might be possible to brush the nationalist slogans back under the carpet and for everyone to benefit from the resultant financial in-flows, but here Kiev has fallen into a trap of its own making. It is a simple fact that economic growth is only possible in collaboration with Russia and the Eurasian Economic Union. There is simply no other option. There is not even any real perspective for the development of agriculture; one would just need look at the example of Bulgaria, where the climate is noticeably more clement than that in Ukraine. Ukraine finds it impossible to compete with Turkey. Once the European Union association agreement comes into force there will be no means of regulating the influx of Turkish agri-business and the only profitable way to engage in agriculture will be in a vegetable garden. It is sufficient to look at the example set in that neighbouring former Soviet state, Moldova.

Insofar as Kiev has adopted a radically anti-Russian model, the chances of growth in that country are precisely zero. The European Union has no money and judging by the way that the crisis is developing the prognosis is not positive, and even if we were to look, more optimistically, into the medium term at the global economic situation, the European Union is most likely to help out the Eastern European Countries and the Baltic States before it bails out Ukraine. Nothing personal, just business.

And this means that Kievan Nationalism is going nowhere. It has no choice as it will be impossible for it to maintain its grip on power otherwise. Moreover it has achieved some success insofar as the United States has enacted sanctions against Russia and coerced its allies in Europe and the wider world to do likewise. There is only one problem: For how long will they be willing to prosecute these sanctions for the sake of Ukraine? Kiev’s issues will continue to mount, insofar as the only way that it can deal with the growth of democratic sentiment in the South East (it is clear that the struggle is for freedom and democracy, regardless of how discordant that sounds from the point of view of the contemporary Western mass media) is by the use of military force. It is far from certain that this particular problem can be resolved by military force.

In summary we can say that, judging by the development of negative economic trends, the intensity of internal confrontation in Kiev will constantly grow. In turn those wishing to live under their guardianship will become fewer and fewer. The cohesion of the Ukrainian state will melt like snow in the heat of the summer sun. As that happens the state will become more and more aggressive So we expect to see a contradiction in answer to the question that we posed. Is it possible to establish peace in the Ukraine?

I intentionally have not referred in general to Ukrainian nationalists, rather specifically to Kievan Nationalists. The fact is that Galician Nationalists and Kievan Nationalists are not the same. The latter always had significant sources of income (be it the budget of the USSR, Ukraine etc.), however the former have been forced to be much more pragmatic. Furthermore they have been unable to understand that they cannot hold Kiev. This is because any government in Kiev, in correspondence to their stability, will in the first instance, fall not upon the Russians in the Donbass, but rather upon the genuine committed nationalists. Today this is what Poroshenko is doing. This was clear earlier and I wrote about this earlier in the year.

Rather than being an idea (which moreover is distinctly un-appealing to the EU), Nationalism for Kiev is an instrument. There is no requirement for committed nationalists. The requirement is for cynics, who are happy to articulate nationalists’ slogans in order to gain control over the budgetary and gas revenue flows. Thus, regarding the situation in recent months, committed nationalists(which for our purposes we shall name ‘Right Sector’) have come to look more and more seriously at breaking away from Kiev. Moreover, Kiev earlier distributed budgetary money to them (received from Donbass and other regions) and now there is no more budgetary money to distribute.

However Galicia by itself cannot breakaway from Kiev. Kiev, for whom the slogan (‘for the unity of the Ukraine’) has become totemic, will never agree to it. This means that, as well as the rebels in the Donbass, there is also appearing a new force, which is also interested in the collapse of the country. In this way, from the above, we can formulate the picture below of the future Ukraine.

Should the Rebels from the South-East reach an agreement with the Galician nationalists, then they will take power in Kiev. In that case, the insurgents, proponents of the former Soviet Union and the slogan ‘friendship of the Peoples’ will, through the creation of a multi-ethnic ethnic state, put an end to nationalism and re-establish peace in the Ukraine. Galicia, as it were, in gratitude for its assistance, would receive either independence, probably as part of a confederation or quite possibly full independence as a separate state. It is clearly difficult to imagine a state where in some schools they teach that Bandera is a fascist criminal and in others – that he is a hero. But that remaining part of the Ukraine will be a peaceful, unified state, entering, one would imagine the European Economic Area.

Should agreement not be reached and the insurgents not achieve victory (either by circumstance or by result of foreign intervention), then the intensifying confrontation in Kiev will inescapably lead to the break-up of the country into petty fiefdoms with a correspondingly low quality of life and norms of governance. At present we enumerate 5 of these; Novorossiya, Hetmanshina (Cossak, with Kiev as its capital), New Khazaria (under the control of the oligarch Kolomoiski) and Galicia. We also consider one more statelet, Transcarpathia which is likely to be dissected and integrated into neighbouring countries.

But nobody has said that the process of disintegration will stop there. Anyone who doubts it should read Bulgakov. The mentality of the people in the Ukraine has not significantly changed since then. It is difficult to even conceive how a normal man can live in these conditions.

If we believe that the best outcome is a united (that is relatively united, without either the Crimea or Galicia) Ukraine, a Ukraine which is peaceful and prosperous, it is essential that the insurgents take control of Kiev. Until this happens, the war will continue. Unfortunately, there is simply no way of stopping the war and preserving Ukraine until Kiev falls to the insurgents.

Obama places Russia between the Ebola virus and international terrorism

Full speech here.
Video of speech here.

This is the except in which Russia and the Ukraine are mentioned:

(...)  Russia’s actions in Ukraine challenge this post-war order. Here are the facts. After the people of Ukraine mobilized popular protests and calls for reform, their corrupt President fled. Against the will of the government in Kiev, Crimea was annexed. Russia poured arms into Eastern Ukraine, fueling violent separatists and a conflict that has killed thousands. When a civilian airliner was shot down from areas that these proxies controlled, they refused to allow access to the crash for days. When Ukraine started to reassert control over its territory, Russia gave up the pretense of merely supporting the separatists, and moved troops across the border.

This is a vision of the world in which might makes right – a world in which one nation’s borders can be redrawn by another, and civilized people are not allowed to recover the remains of their loved ones because of the truth that might be revealed. America stands for something different. We believe that right makes might – that bigger nations should not be able to bully smaller ones; that people should be able to choose their own future.

These are simple truths, but they must be defended. America and our allies will support the people of Ukraine as they develop their democracy and economy. We will reinforce our NATO allies, and uphold our commitment to collective defense. We will impose a cost on Russia for aggression, and counter falsehoods with the truth. We call upon others to join us on the right side of history – for while small gains can be won at the barrel of a gun, they will ultimately be turned back if enough voices support the freedom of nations and peoples to make their own decisions.

Moreover, a different path is available – the path of diplomacy and peace and the ideals this institution is designed to uphold. The recent cease-fire agreement in Ukraine offers an opening to achieve that objective. If Russia takes that path – a path that for stretches of the post-Cold War period resulted in prosperity for the Russian people – then we will lift our sanctions and welcome Russia’s role in addressing common challenges. That’s what the United States and Russia have been able to do in past years – from reducing our nuclear stockpiles to meet our obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to cooperating to remove and destroy Syria’s declared chemical weapons. And that’s the kind of cooperation we are prepared to pursue again—if Russia changes course. (...)

Basically, this is the same line as Poroshenko (which is really unsurprising since they used pretty much the same speechwriters).  The message to Russia is simple:"surrender or we will mobilize the entire planet against you".

Foreign Minister Lavrov commented: “As for the U.S. President’s speech, we earned the second place among the threats to international peace and stability: number one is the Ebola virus, number two is the so-called Russian aggression in Europe and ISIL and other terrorists who are now taking hold of the Middle East and primarily of the countries, which have evidenced U.S. interventions, are ranked as number three.”

Feel the love :-)

The Saker