Very interesting article from the New Slav Media (NSM) website
For me something wrong is going on behind the doors of US and UN. I read many times that two ways were taken under serious consideration to achieve world government/domination - 1) dissolving UN and creating sort of new League of Democracies (a'la McCain), 2) or through UN takeover. The New World Order would have had its government and its executive force. Would it be NATO forces? I do not believe in it but decidedly there is something going on. That US needs sometimes a fig leaf to cover her nefarious deeds is obvious to me. But "attaching" NATO to UN is rather a sinister act.
Probably we are witnesses to the first shots in war for Ukraine, Georgia, and Caspian Basin. The US of A seeks the NATO moves to be approved by UN without Security Council consent to have a free hand in intervening against Russia. Is it a far-fetched argument or not? Does US want to go against Russia under the blue helmet of UN? Search me!
The first text is a Google translation from Russian article published in Izvestiya. I have made a few corrections.
Mr Dmitry Rogozin, The Permanent Representative of Russia to NATO: "UN Secretary-General deserves impeachment"
Izviestiya, By Ksenia Fokina
Picture (click to enlarge): From Voices From Russia's Recognition of the UDI of Kosovo is not within the Competence of the EU [>].
The Permanent Representative of Russia to NATO Dmitry Rogozin: "UN Secretary-General deserved impeachment" Ksenia Fokina
Within UN a large scandal is being developing. At the meeting of Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council in Brussels a scandalous document suddenly surfaced, which was signed by UN gensek Mr Ban Ki-moon, and by NATO gensek Mr Jaap de Hoop Scheffer on 23 September in New York. What is its essence? Information was given by Mr Dmitry Rogozin, Russia's ambassador to NATO who has participated in the meeting. He talked to Izvestia columnist Mrs Ksenia Fokina.
Question: What is this agreement and why it became known only now?
Answer: It is a collaboration between the UN and NATO. Of course, the agreement has caused resentment not only among the Russian delegation, but also from other members of UN Security Council, which was not informed that they had started to consider NATO as peacekeeping organization. All were surprised when Mr Ban Ki-moon and NATO gensek sign the agreement literally in the closet, under a blanket. The document which was not known even to the permanent members of the Security Council. In fact, it puts the UN and NATO on an equal footing. Mr Ban Ki-Moon pronounced the alliance to be non military regional organization, but who knows if it is going to substitute the UN in all the matters related to international security. His deed, of course, will require further considerations. Russia, as permanent Security Council member, has to find out why he had assumed plenary powers he not even dreamed of. We believe this agreement illegitimate and demand an investigation of Mr Ban Ki-Moon activities.
Q: What's the crux of the agreement?
A: First of all, they married me without me myself. Neither Russia nor China nor other members of the Security Council did not know that they delegated special powers to NATO to conduct operations around the world. And that agreement gives NATO a free hand.
Q: What clearly means that UN gives NATO consent to all military operations which the bloc leadership has considered peaceful?
A: In the text of an agreement, what Ban Ki-moon acknowledged, NATO can be guided by certain "directives". But in the lexicon of the UN such a notion does not exist. There are such things as international law and UN mandate. All actions against them are arbitrary and they border a crime. Who knows whether the same leadership was given henceforth almost a Carte Blanche to new adventures. As it happened in 1999 in Yugoslavia. That way Ban Ki-moon risks of being subjected to impeachment. His behavior is scandalous.
Q: What was the reaction of Europeans to this agreement?
A: They were shocked. All demanded the text of the document, which was signed secretly on 23 of September but for some reason it was hidden. And thanks to the Russian delegation only, the world learned of its existence. Moreover, Ban Ki-moon has vindicated NATO's bombing of Yugoslavia. The document states that the United Nations and NATO have cooperated successfully in the Balkans.
Q: So, why do you think NATO was in need of such an agreement?
A: First and foremost to ensure that the UN shared responsibility for the forthcoming defeat of NATO in Afghanistan.
Q: A meeting of Defense Ministers of NATO countries is being held in Budapest to discuss "a defense plan against Russia." How do you take this attitude?
A: It is initiative convened by neurotic Baltic countries which everyplace and in everything see Moscow machinations. They have already picked to diehard NATO members, mainly to Old Europe countries, pushing for immediately triggering mechanism of fifth article of the Washington Treaty - an agreement on collective defense in case of an attack from a third party. Initially they tried to "coerced" Europeans to their views with the help of Americans at the informal meeting of Defense Ministers in London and now they are doing the same in Budapest.
Q: So, once again sliding into confrontation? (We) did not get cooperation?
A: In general, despite all these significant incidents, cooperation continues. A "warming" program is continued. I think NATO is waiting for the moment when it could be able to establish diplomatic relations with Russia in full without losing face. At the very least, those interested in the process are the serious players. Only one snag exists there which affects the minds in Brussels - the American elections. While they did not take place, changes in the position of the alliance will not happen.
Russia official blasts 'secretive' UN-NATO deal
The Associated Press, IHT.com
Published: October 9, 2008
Picture (click to enlarge): From The Just-us League [>]. A quote - "What is it about the phony League of Democracies that continues to attract attention?
John McCain famously put the proposed organization on the map earlier this spring with a speech to the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. "We should go further and start bringing democratic peoples and nations from around the world into one common organization, a worldwide League of Democracies," said McCain. This organization would:
"…form the core of an international order of peace based on freedom. It could act where the UN fails to act, to relieve human suffering in places like Darfur. It could join to fight the AIDS epidemic in sub-Saharan Africa and fashion better policies to confront the crisis of our environment. It could provide unimpeded market access to those who share the values of economic and political freedom, an advantage no state-based system could attain. It could bring concerted pressure to bear on tyrants in Burma or Zimbabwe, with or without Moscow's and Beijing's approval. It could unite to impose sanctions on Iran and thwart its nuclear ambitions. It could provide support to struggling democracies in Ukraine and Serbia and help countries like Thailand back on the path to democracy."".
Moscow on Thursday accused NATO and the United Nations of secretly forging an agreement that tightens their cooperation without informing Russia, a U.N. Security Council member whose relations with NATO are badly strained.
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Russia was aware an agreement was in the works and assumed it would be shown to member states for review. "This did not happen, and the agreement between the secretariats was signed in a secretive way," Lavrov said.
Main themes: (quotes)
Russia's anger reflected its wariness that closer relations could give NATO more clout at the United Nations, where Moscow holds veto power as a permanent Security Council member.
(...) Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Andrei Nesterenko suggested that top U.N. officials went back on their word. "We were assured at the highest level of the U.N. secretariat that no such document would be signed without informing us in advance," he said.
U.N. spokeswoman Michele Montas said the U.N.-NATO agreement did not require approval from member states. Montas said the U.N. has similar arrangements with other entities, such as the European Union and the African Union, and that the latest agreement acknowledges that NATO and the U.N. have cooperated for more than a decade on U.N.-mandated missions.
(...) As examples, Montas cited U.N.-NATO work in the Balkans, Afghanistan, and strategic airlift support provided by NATO to AU missions working under U.N. mandates in Sudan and Somalia. She said they have also cooperated in U.N. disaster relief operations. "The present UN-NATO declaration acknowledges that reality, and provides a framework for continued consultation and cooperation," Montas said. She said it calls for regular communication between officials, training and sharing information.
(...) The Interfax news agency quoted Rogozin as saying that Russia considers the declaration "illegal" and that U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon exceeded his authority when he signed it.
UN and NATO sign Secret Military Cooperation Agreement in Violation of UN Charter
Global Research, October 9, 2008
Picture (click to enlarge): From Daylife's Photo from Getty Images by AFP/Getty Images [>]. A caption - "4 months ago: Russian defence chief General Yuri Baluyevsky arrives for a press conference, on May 15, 2008 at the end of a NATO-Russia council at the NATO headquarters in Brussels. NATO countries are contributing to a "destabilising" build-up of military power in ex-Soviet Georgia, the Russian defence ministry charged. "Members of NATO and other countries are gradually following the course of providing Georgia with large-scale military aid," the ministry said in a statement. As Georgia has not ruled out the use of force against its rebel regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, "the build-up of the potential of the republic's military forces is having a destabilising influence on the... situation in the South Caucasus," the statement said. Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili has vowed to regain control over the two Moscow-backed provinces, which broke from central control in wars in the 1990s, but has said he hopes to avoid any military conflict."
Russia stunned by UN-NATO cooperation deal
BISHKEK, October 9 (RIA Novosti) - Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Thursday that Russia was shocked the UN and NATO had secretly signed a cooperation agreement without all UN member states reading the draft.
"Before such agreements are signed, their drafts should be submitted to member states for reading. But in this case this did not happen, and the agreement between the secretariats was signed secretly," Sergei Lavrov told journalists after a CIS foreign ministers' meeting in Bishkek.
The Russian diplomat said he had asked UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon while at the UN General Assembly last month why such secrecy was needed but "received no comprehensible explanation."
He also said it was surprising that although the document implied cooperation between the two secretariats, its text contained provisions related to immediate prerogatives of member states, including the intention to cooperate in maintaining international security on the basis of the UN Charter and certain international directives.
"We asked both secretariats what this could mean and we are waiting for a reply, but we warned the UN leadership in the strictest fashion that things of this kind must be done without keeping secrets from member states and on the basis of powers and authority held by the secretariats," Lavrov said.
He added that cooperation between the UN and regional organizations was in general a normal and necessary thing but said such ties must be transparent and arouse no questions.
Russia's envoy to NATO Dmitry Rogozin said late Wednesday that Ban Ki-moon and NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer signed the declaration of cooperation between the secretariats on September 23 during the UN General Assembly in New York.
Rogozin accused Ban Ki-moon of acting beyond his powers and pointed to a discrepancy between the preface and the body of the document, saying Moscow could not consider the document legitimate and would view it as reflecting the UN chief's personal opinion.
Rogozin said he hoped the issue would be raised in the UN Security Council and the secretariat, as well as at NATO because the document related to Afghanistan.