Excellent statement of Russia's rep at the UNSC (dubbed in English) (UPDATED with transcript)

TRANSCRIPT: (thanks to "OP"!!)

(After Ukrainian representative’s statement)

Thank you, Ms. Chairman.

Today many words, many statements were sounded but the first impression I would like to share with my colleagues is that they do not look at the watch. Now it is a half past nine p.m. and it means that it is about a half to four a.m. now in Ukraine. In a couple of hours, the morning of April 14 will come there. Actually, this is the time when according to a criminal order by Mr. Turchinov the Ukrainian Army should be used to suppress protest manifestations.

Many unfair statements were sounded, but of course, the one who outdid everybody and actually himself was my Ukrainian colleague. He prosecuted Russia in terrorism. Why haven’t you prosecuted those who terrorized your government during several months until February 21? Who actually fought the militia forces, who burned police officers alive, shot them and those who protested with themselves together against the government and appeared to be their allies. You didn’t call them terrorists for some reason, and even released them from responsibility for their criminal actions they were doing for several months.

Again, unfortunately several ridiculous prosecutions were sounded to Russia. They said that Russia wants to destabilize the Ukraine, even tries to suffocate it. However, why haven’t you answered our call to start a dialogue about how to help the Ukraine to struggle through a crisis when it just started? Why were you inciting to continue this confrontation? Why have it happened so late that Foreign Ministers of France, Germany and Poland said EU actually needs to talk to Russia about economic prospective of Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova in case of their association with EU? By the way, I have not heard anybody supported this call in Brussels. We were reproached in “suffocation of Ukraine” even when we just refused to deliver our natural gas to Ukraine for free. Let see what will be an answer of EU Ministers on President Putin’s letter about how can we work together on pulling the Ukraine out of economical quagmire on April 14. However, Washington who actually have not been an addressee of this letter has already straightened the Europe calling this letter “an economical blackmail”. Let us see if there is any sovereignty remained for EU, is it able to make rational decisions to save the crisis or not.

During the whole crisis in Ukraine Russia voted not for an exhalation and destabilization of the country – this is not what we are interested in, because it is our important economic and political partner and a very close country for us in many ways – but against this destabilization. And we are not guilty in this situation we are observing now. Mr. Fernandes Taranka said that UN’s representatives began to observe actions that people of southeast of the Ukraine started to do capturing some administrative buildings. By the way here they, of course, used experience of Maidan and Kiev where administrative buildings were captured during months. However, our Western partners called it (Maidan – tr.) “a piece of democracy” for some reason. But they don’t endorse the same tactics when Southeastern people do it. It was on April 6 and 1, 5 months have passed since February 21 when President Yanukovich had been overthrown and an agreement had been signed what should have been able to prevent an exhalation. From the very beginning the one thing we were saying was that we should implement this agreement. Maybe we should gather a Constitutional Assembly, to make some decisive gesture to Southeast of the Ukraine, Were these gestures made? Well, finally Mr. Yatsenyuk came (to Southeast – tr.), said something and left, and the next day Mr. Turchinov makes a speech and says that he is not agree with Yatsenyuk. It turns out that they prefer to use a force.

By the way there were very worrying notes during a number of our consultations with our Western colleagues. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, as you know, has conversations over the phone with US State Secretary John Kerry almost every day. Every time Kerry shows he understands our confusion and that he tries to do something speaking to Kiev to help them with understanding Southeast’s needs and worries about its autonomy and language rights. But suddenly one of his Deputies makes a speech in the Congress and says “We know that this conversation will have no result but we need to spare time somehow”. To spare time. So, maybe there is a Turchinov’s “army-using” scenario in somebody’s head in Washington? Then let’s stop blaming Russia that we’re seeking for destabilization.

The US representative mentioned that Vice President Biden will come to Ukraine, as I remember, on April 21st. But why should he wait for that day? Let him take a receiver right now and call Mr. Turchinov as he called President Yanukovich several times before February 21. Let him tell Mr. Turchinov the same he told Mr. Yanukovich. And according to VP’s press-service he said “Don’t use a force, in the name of God! Take away your police forces from Kiev’s center”. This is what Mr. Biden said. And what now – the USA will approve this criminal order about using an army? Why when people were going to assault the Ukrainian President’s apartments they called not to use force and now in present situation they have an opposite point of view, supporting Turchinov’s order? So please, Ms. Power, ask VP Biden to call Mr. Turchinov right now because in several hours events could take an irreversible turn.

Some colleagues said about that meeting which as had been announced should take place on April 17 with hope. Indeed, we were searching for any formats of dialogue - during several months and especially after February 21 - which could pull the crisis and we agreed for a meeting of Foreign Minister of Russia, US State Secretary, the High Representative of EU Ms. Ashton and acting Foreign Minister of the Ukraine. We hoped that this meeting may cause a wide political dialogue in the Ukraine, show a political way out of crisis. But do you really think we will be sort out papers while the Ukrainian army will start military actions? Of course an opportunity for such a meeting will be totally disturbed.

So please, let us forget any speculations, prosecutions, searching for Russian ghosts in different corners of the Ukraine and concentrate on what we can do – now I’m looking in direction of my Western colleagues – to prevent reckless actions of Kiev’s government which now released as this criminal order by Mr. Turchinov, to prevent bringing It into life. It will have the toughest consequences for people of the Ukraine and we must avoid it.

Thank you.

(After remarks of Ukrainian and US representatives)

Thank you.

I will not speak long now. I will tell only two things. Firstly, Yuriy Anatolievich, you call your people “bandits” too easy. Too easy. Those who represent “The Right Sector” and those who says today that they need to kill people – those are not bandits, you mean, those are, obviously “political elite” in Kiev now. And those who are protesting now in the East – they cannot act without help of Russia, of course (irony – tr.). Really, how could they understand that things that are been doing by Kiev’s government now is bad without a prompt from Russia? Of course, they cannot understand it. Miners are working there and some radicals are telling that they will come and set there a new order. They will not understand it by themselves, yeah? Only Russian agents may come and explain them that the things are bad. They will listen to it and will agree within seconds, of course. Whole their life experience and understanding a situation in their own country mean nothing, right? Why do you approach so easily to the situation?

Well and what about what American colleague, Mrs. Power, said. She hasn’t shown her attitude to this order to use an army in Eastern Ukraine. I still hope that after today’s discussion as Ukrainian colleague called on some of our Western colleagues will take their receivers, call their bosses and say them to impose their influence on Kiev and not to kindle the green light, because Kiev’s government does nothing without their approval. And our purpose should be to solve problems by a dialogue, not by a military confrontation.

Thank You.

For the third time now both Russia and China have vetoed the latest anti-Syrian Resolution at U.N.

This morning both Russia and China have vetoed the latest "NATO-sponsored" anti-Syrian Resolution at UN:

Good.

At this point, this is not about Assad or even Syria, its about fundamental and absolutely crucial principles of international law. It's about telling Uncle Shmuel - NIET! You are not the world's policeman and you cannot force us to submit to your threats.

On one hand, the fact that only Russia and China dared to oppose this resolution (South Africa and Pakistan abstained while Azerbaijan, India, Colombia, Morocco, Togo, Germany, Guatemala, Portugal voted in support) is a pretty good indicator of the relative power of the two sides:  Russia and China are still pretty isolated in their opposition to the US Empire.  Even India, a fellow BRICS member, did not have the courage to abstain, nevermind oppose, this Resolution.  On the other hand, this also shows that Russia and China are powerful enough to act by themselves and that they don't need anybody else's support.

Russia and China deserve a great deal of respect and gratitude for daring to stand up to what could be called the "Anglo/Zionist/Wahabi" alliance.

I am not sure that this "¡No pasarán!" will be any more successful than the original one, but it is heartening to see that somebody is still resisting.

No doubt, the anti-Russian hysteria will now reach a new high (for some reason, China's stance is mostly overlooked by the so-called "friends of Syria"), but if that is the price to pay for standing up for what is right, then it is well worth it.

The Saker

Russia 'cannot support' UN Syria draft resolution

The BBC reports: Russia's deputy foreign minister says his country "cannot support" a draft United Nations Security Council resolution on Syria.  According to the Interfax news agency, Gennady Gatilov said that despite changes that took some of its concerns into account, Russia could not support the text in its current form.

"This is not enough for us," he said.

The resolution, drafted by European and Arab countries, endorses an Arab League plan for Syria.

NATO blinked first

This is encouraging.  To my surprise, and relief, it appears that Russia refused cave in the the US/NATO demands on Syria and that they two key provisions (regime change, weapons embargo) were dropped from the next UNSC Resolution.

Good.

As you probably know, I am not exactly an Assad fanboy, but turning Syria into the next Libya would be a disaster for the entire region and a calamity for the Resistance (to Israel).

I hope that Russia will stand firm and that it will not do what it did with Libya (which it deliberately betrayed at the UNSC - Lavrov and Churkin are both very savvy diplomats who must have known what they were doing).

More generally, considering the latest NATO attacks on Russia (ABM system in Europe and strategic psyops about "election fraud" in Russia) is it now time for Russia to bear its teeth and growl with a more menacing tone.

The West wants a "new Cold War"?

I say "let's have it!" (they are imposing it on Russia anyway...)

The Saker

China and Russia veto UN resolution condemning Syria

Great news: China and Russia veto UN resolution condemning Syria. God knows I am no more a fan of Assad than I am of Gaddafi, but there is no doubt in my mind that the worst possible solution would be a repetition of what happened in Libya, but this time in Syria. Furthermore, China and Russia are also sending a message to the US and its European "pack of poodles" (remember Blair as "Dubya's poodle?) that enough is enough, and that considering how comprehensively the UN resolution on Libya was misinterpreted, bypassed or directly ignored, no resolution at all with be passed on Syria.

Does that mean that China and Russia have learned their lesson?

This question assumes that somehow China and Russia were naive, Pollyanna-like, and that they were duped by the US and NATO. That is absolute rubbish, IMNSHO. Chinese and Russian diplomats are extremely capable, experienced and sophisticated people who must have known from day 1 that any resolution which spoke of "all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack in the country (notice, not even actual attack, even 'threats' of attack are enough for all necessary measures) meant a 'carte blanche' for the US Empire and its minions.

No, the Chinese and the Russian new exactly what they were doing when they betrayed Libya and turned it to the care of the US/NATO. They were either bought, or there was some quid pro quo, or they wanted to further over-extend the US/NATO, or whatever. I will never believe that they did not know what they were doing. They might, therefore, do it again. Just like Russia 'gave' Bosnia to NATO only to then roar in outrage over the NATO war in Kosovo.

Frankly, the Chinese and Russian attitude makes no sense to me and while I do rejoice over today's veto over Syria, I deeply regret that neither country has decided to be consistent in its resistance against the US to become a world hegemon.

Russia's disgraceful surrender at the UNSC (UPDATED)

On March 10th I wrote the following on this blog:

Russian TV has shown a statement of Foreign Minister Lavrov who declared that Russia opposes any type of military intervention in the Libyan conflict.  The Eltsin years are over and I don't think that Russia will back down from this. So no UNSC resolution authorizing any US/NATO military intervention will be passed.

Sadly, it turns out that I was wrong, very wrong.  Yesterday evening the Russian representative at the UNSC, Vitalii Churkin made some excellent comments about the proposed resolution only to then proceed to abstain thereby letting the resolution pass!

It is absolutely mind boggling that Russia would revert to exactly the kind of spineless surrenders which used to characterize its foreign policy in the Eltsin years.  Does the Kremlin really want another Bosnia only this time in the Maghreb?

The first worrying sign was Russia's betrayal of Iran at the UNSC followed by a reneging on the committment to deliver S-300 air defense systems to Iran.  The betrayal of Libya is arguably even worse, both in moral terms and in the severity of the consequences resulting from it:

a) The US and NATO have now a de-facto free reign to do whatever the hell they want not only over Libya, but also in Libya.  The UNSC resolution speaks of "all necessary measures" to protect civilians.  We know what that means - anything the Pentagon wants it to mean.

b) Given that the US and NATO have now an open-ended and unrestricted authority to do whatever they want, it is clear that whatever regime replaces Gaddafi will be vetted and approved by the USraelian Empire.

c) Just as in Bosnia, the Empire is now supporting the party which is loosing the conflict.  No, not out of a deep sense of compassion, but because it is easy to make this party into a proxy for the Empire.  In other words, what this resolution does is make the anti-Gaddafi forces fully dependent on the Empire.

d) This resolution will make very little difference on the ground, at least in its no-fly zone aspect.  If the Empire is serious about regime change in Libya - and it is - it will have to wave the "all necessary measures" part to intervene militarily.  Russia will then condemn and complain.

It is hard to imagine a more hypocritical stance than Russia's.  It would have been more honest to openly support the resolution.  Needless to say, Russia's credibility as an ally will suffer even further from this cowardly abstention.

You might ask 'well, what about China?"  To this I will answer that at least China does not lecture the US Empire like Russia does, neither does China pretend to be in any way an 'alternative global power'.  China's stance has always been the same: oppose intervention on principle, keep a low profile on international issues, and deal with economic issues.  That is, I think, far more honest and dignified than Russia's disgraceful grandstanding.

The resolution itself is phenomenally hypocritical.  The Gadaffi regime is blamed for using military force against its own people while Bahrain has been invaded by a an international gang of Wahabi stormtroopers who immediately proceeded to engage in an orgy of atrocities against the Bahraini people.  But, of course, Bahrain is an Imperial colony so a bloodbath there does not matter to the UN.  I won't even mention the slow-motion genocide of the Palestinian people by the "Jewish state of Israel".  Only Libyan victims matter to the UNSC.

What is particularly appalling is that in the bad old days, the USSR and Libya had very close ties.  Yes, the Soviet regime was in many ways loathesome, and so was Gadaffi's Jamahiriya - but in spite of that many Russians and Libyans forged close ties and real friendships.  Now that the Soviet regime is gone and Gadaffi is on his way out, I would have hoped that Russia would do the right thing and care for the Libyan people.  Instead - Russia simply handed them over the the Empire.

To say that I am utterly disgusted would be an understatement.

The Saker

UPDATE1: According to RT, "Russia warns of "full-scale military action" following Security Council vote on Libya".  Oh yeah?!  Then why the hell did you not veto this resolution Mr Churkin?!  How utterly disgusting...

Hezbollah did not call for a no-fly zone over Libya

Good news!

I now have it from two separate and well-informed sources: Hezbollah did not participate in any decision concerning the official position of Lebanon on the issue of the no-fly zone. Furthermore, I was told only a statement published on the website http://www.english.moqawama.org/ can be seen as an official Hezbollah statement.

This makes me wonder whose instructions the Lebanese representative at the UNSC was following when he decided to support a call for a no-fly zone resolution at the UN.

The Saker

A no-fly zone over Libya? A very bad idea indeed

It sure looks like the Empire is trying to make the most from an otherwise unpredictable situation.  In Egypt, the Empire is now allowing for a travel ban on Mubarak while in Libya the US-NATO forces seem to be gearing up for the imposition of a no-fly zone.

I just head a British lawyer on al-Jazeera explaining that a no-fly zone can be imposed by the UNSC in case of genocide, crimes against humanity and other such massive atrocities which the so-called "duty to defend" doctrine can invoke to impose a no-fly zone.  Except that nothing of the kind is taking place in Libya.

Ok, before somebody calls me a Gadaddi-fanboy let me make something clear: I don't care for the guy one bit and I am absolutely delighted that his own people have decided to get rid of him, his sons, and his minions.  But that does not mean that a genocide or crimes against humanity are taking place in Libya.

First, I don't think anybody besides ex-Libyan diplomats trying to endear themselves to their new masters is seriously suggesting that a genocide is taking place in Libya.  What about crimes against humanity then?

Take a look here for a definition of "crimes against humanity".  I suppose that one could make the case that murder, disappearance, torture and "persecution against some groups" is taking place now.  But to qualify as crime against humanity these need to be "committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack".  I see no evidence of that whatsoever (which is not to say that I deny that they are occurring, only that I see no evidence of that).  Here is what we know about the situation in Libya:

1) there are violent clashes taking place which include the use of lethal force to control and suppress demonstrations.

2) there are also armed battles between regime-controlled military/security/polices forces on one side, a armed militias of anti-regime forces.  Judging by the footage shown on al-Jazeera, the oppositions forces' armament range from primitive hunting rifles, to anti-air guns (a *formidable* and vastly under-rated weapon which can be used against personnel, armor, buildings, roads, bridges, artillery and, of course, aircraft), mortars, anti-tank missiles and even main battle tanks.

3) there has been no proof shown whatsoever which would indicate that the Libyan Air Force has been used to bomb anything besides ammunition dumps.

I would say that NONE of that qualifies as "crimes against humanity".

Frankly, this reminds me of the so-called "Timisoara massacre" - a fictional massacre invented to help topple Ceaușescu or the "Racak massacre" - another fictional massacre invented to justify the US/NATO attack against Yugoslavia.   By the way, Ceaușescu and Milosevic were certainly repugnant individuals with plenty of blood on their arms, just like Gadaffi, but that is hardly a justification.  It is a very naive and misguided think that to generate or propagate such fictional atrocities is acceptable: the parties generating them are always using such lies to manipulate the public opinion and hide the true nature of their intervention.

In the case of Libya, what seems to be coalescing is the imposition of a no-fly zone.  The danger of such a plan is that it puts the military powers imposing such a no-fly zone in the position of becoming king-makers.  You can be sure that if such a no-fly zone is decided upon, it is not going to be the Chinese or Chilean Air Force which will enforce it but the same clique which imposed the no fly zones on Bosnia and Iraq: the US and its NATO puppets.

Yes, a no-fly zone would tactically help the anti-Gadaffi forces, but only at the cost of a major strategic risk.  Once a no-fly zone is enforced by the US/NATO there will be absolutely no oversight whatsoever over exactly how it is enforced.  The US NATO forces will be able to easily begin flying all sorts of missions which have nothing to do with the enforcement of the no-fly zone or the prevention of 'crimes against humanity': aerial reconnaissance, insertion of special forces or foreign elements, exfiltration of allies and agents, covert airstrikes, delivery of supplies and ammunitions, false-flag massacres, etc.  While the idea of a no-fly zone seems very reasonable and non-interventionist, the reality is that it puts the country over which it is imposed at the complete mercy of the forces enforcing it.

I very much hope that the Libyan people and the countries at the UNSC who are not puppets of the Empire (Russia, China) will see through all this and not allow such a resolution to pass.

The Saker

Iran responds to UNSC resolution

Press TV reports:

Iran's Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) has issued a declaration in response to a recent UN Security Council resolution against the country.

The following is the full text of the declaration:

In the name of God, the most Gracious and the Merciful

The Islamic Republic of Iran's Declaration in Response to the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1929

The United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 1929 on 9 June 2010. Contrary to the expectation of the international community that the new UNSC resolution would condemn Israel's attack on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla less than ten days before the adoption of the Resolution, the international community saw once again the United States defending the Zionist regime and thus preventing the Security Council from taking any action against the atrocities The Resolution also ignored the final declaration of Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference that was adopted just 15 days earlier by 189 countries. This declaration required the Zionist regime to abide by the NPT. But the international community had not seen a single UNSC resolution condemning the nuclear activities of the Zionist regime. Nor has the Council shown any intention of finding out who has provided nuclear weapons to the Zionist regime.

The reason is clear. Some of the permanent members of the Security Council are principal suspects of this proliferation. The subject of Resolution 1929 is not about the concern over production, manufacturing, proliferation or testing of a new generation of nuclear weapons by permanent members of the Security Council. Also there is no reference to 11 proposals by the Islamic Republic of Iran during the NPT Review Conference concerning disarmament and non-proliferation; the same proposals that received a warm response by the international community. The subject of the Resolution, contrary to all expectations, is the peaceful nuclear activities of the Islamic Republic of Iran, which have been demonized on the basis of false accusation that accusations that have not been proven. On the contrary, the last report by the Director General of the IAEA, published only a day before the Resolution, reiterated for the 22nd time that our activities have not diverted from their peaceful objectives.

Those behind the adoption of this Resolution are exposing themselves to the judgment of the international community under circumstances that the world witnessed adoption of Tehran declaration. This was a declaration that openly and clearly called for peaceful nuclear cooperation without any confrontation with regards to the rights of sovereign nations. The United States encouraged Brazil and Turkey to interact with Iran. This is while one month after the adoption of the Tehran declaration, it was welcomed by the 120 members of the Non-Aligned Movement.

The adoption of Resolution 1929 irrespective of the Tehran declaration and the attack on Gaza Freedom Flotilla has proven the righteousness of the viewpoints of the Islamic Republic of Iran:

1. It proves that the Security Council is not a proper forum to uphold the maintenance of international peace and security and a body to secure the rights of nations. It proves that as long as the United States formally regards itself committed to the security of the Zionist regime and continues to support its atrocities, the Security Council is not able to adopt any resolution condemning the many crimes committed by the Zionist regime.

2. It proves that the United States is becoming more and more discredited and distrusted in the world and that not even the slogan of "change" could restore the US administrations long-lost credibility. The international community clearly witnessed the US Presidents willingness to take the credit of other countries under false pretense. This can be judged by the statements made by President of Brazil and the Prime Minister of Turkey, which are now available to the international community.

3. It has proven the United States is the principal offender in using, proliferating, and testing nuclear weapons, and thus poses the greatest threat to the international community and mostly its own people. How can a regime that is not able to contain an oil well be trusted by the world to contain its arsenal of nuclear weapons that jeopardizes global security?

4. It has been proven that the United Stated tries to distract and redirect world public opinion from the real threats by concocting made-up and fictitious threats. The real threats are the direct results of flawed policies by the American regime in stockpiling nuclear weapons and supporting state terrorism.

5. It has been proven that certain monopolist governments are determined to deprive other nations of peaceful nuclear technology and having access to fuel cycle which are clear examples of the "right to development," "right to natural resources" and the "right to self-determination."


Using the opportunity to demonstrate to the public opinion of the world the above-mentioned viewpoints, the Islamic Republic of Iran declares:

1. Entry of the Security Council into the subject relating to peaceful activities of the Islamic Republic of Iran is illegal, unwarranted and contrary to Article 39 of the Charter. It also fully contravenes the organizational and safeguard requirements of the IAEA. The Council needs to take prompt action in redressing and putting right its past mistakes.

2. The Islamic Republic of Iran openly and clearly declares that any action against the lawful and legitimate rights of people of Iran will be responded by reciprocal lawful actions of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

3. Disappointment of the US administration in receiving the unanimous vote of the members of the Security Council, despite all the unconventional pressure exerted and contacts established by the president, and the fact the international community in the declaration of the Non-Aligned Movement chose not to go along with the will of certain big powers clearly demonstrate the beginning of a new era of international relations to ensure the rights of nations based on justice and respect.

4. We are pleased to see that "Peaceful Nuclear Energy for All, Nuclear Weapons for None" as a human goal, has turned into an opportunity to forge greater cooperation among independent governments and consider it an auspicious phenomenon for defending the fundamental rights of nations. Therefore, we believe that the insistence of the US administration on continuing on the same flawed path is costly, useless and will only result in uncovering the unjust and faulty mask of the Security Council at their own cost and will strengthen the resolve of nations to have fair international relations.

5. The Islamic Republic of Iran emphasizes again the importance of the Tehran declaration as a good foundation for greater solidarity of independent nations in countering the excessive demands by big powers and forging stronger relations for peace, justice and happiness for humankind.

Poll: Russia's stance on Iran 'a mistake'

Press TV reports:

Some 82 percent of respondents to a Russian radio poll have said they deem Moscow's approval of fresh UN Security Council sanctions against Iran a "mistake."

The poll, conducted during a live Radio Moscow interview with Rajab Safarov, director of the Center for Contemporary Iranian Studies, comes one week after the Security Council voted to impose a fourth round of sanctions against Iran, tightening financial and military restrictions on the Islamic Republic.

The poll shows that 82 percent of respondents "assess Moscow's support of Western anti-Iran policies as well as the 'Yes' vote against the country at the Security Council as a mistake ," RIANovosti's Persian service reported Wednesday.

"The US and the West are seeking to lure Moscow over to their side, but this is not to Russia's advantage, since in the end Russia will pay the loss," Safarov was quoted as saying.

Noting Iran's central role in regional and international issues, Safarov went on to stress that by distancing itself away from Iran, Moscow has jeopardized its ties with Tehran.

He highlighted that Tehran could now pose as a new energy rival with its pipeline to Europe.

Safarov added that as a regional power, Iran would not allow any foreign interference in its internal issues, and praised Iran, Turkey and Brazil's nuclear declaration as an "international document, which offered the world a solution to the standoff over Iran's nuclear program.”

The pundit also urged Moscow not to renege on a deal to deliver S-300 defense systems to Iran, and to reassess its current policies.

In response to Safarov's remarks, Yevgeny Satanovsky, the president of the Institute of Middle East Studies, argued that any attempt to dictate policies to Russia is "meaningless."

"Russia has a president and he is Dmitry Medvedev and not Mr. Ahmadinejad (the Iranian president). Russia has a prime minister, Vladimir Putin…and the country has leaders who weigh positive and negative aspects of their decisions," Satanovsky said.

"It is true that Iran is an ancient civilization, which was on the map long before Russia, Europe and the US, but in recent centuries Russia has gotten used to its place on the map and the fact that it has its own leadership," he added.

Satanovsky said as long as Russia adopts a policy that it wants, talk of "conspiracies and alliances" is meaningless.

"Of course, one could sulk but this childish behavior would show that Tehran has not grasped Russia's intentions,…Russia has repeatedly told Iran that its actions with regards to the international community are not acceptable," he added.

The Middle East expert went on to note that Moscow-Tehran relations were dictated by the Russian intelligence service.

"The 90s intelligence reports under Vyacheslav Ivanovich consider Russia's main problem to be Iran -- not NATO, the US or even China," he said.

He said even current threats such as Afghanistan's drug problem and a possible threat of Pakistan's nuclear weapons are seen as secondary.

He also claimed that Iran was alone in deeming Russia a partner, as Moscow had never been "fooled into" an alliance with Tehran.

The results of the poll were announced at the end of the interview, with only 18 percent of the viewers agreeing with Satanovsky.
-------
Comment: 82% of Russians disapprove of the decision on Iran sanctions by their otherwise rather popular President and government. Could that have happened in the USA? Hopefully this news report will open the eyes of those who seem to have a hard time differentiating between Russia and the USA.

UNSC statement on Israel's Gaza aid ships raid

The UN Security Council has agreed a statement following Israel's raid on Monday on a convoy of aid ships bound for Gaza. Here is the full text as published by the BBC:

The Security Council deeply regrets the loss of life and injuries resulting from the use of force during the Israeli military operation in international waters against the convoy sailing to Gaza. The Council, in this context, condemns those acts which resulted in the loss of at least ten civilians and many wounded, and expresses its condolences to their families.

The Security Council requests the immediate release of the ships as well as the civilians held by Israel. The Council urges Israel to permit full consular access, to allow the countries concerned to retrieve their deceased and wounded immediately, and to ensure the delivery of humanitarian assistance from the convoy to its destination.

The Security Council takes note of the statement of the UN Secretary-General on the need to have a full investigation into the matter and it calls for a prompt, impartial, credible and transparent investigation conforming to international standards.

The Security Council stresses that the situation in Gaza is not sustainable. The Council re-emphasizes the importance of the full implementation of Resolutions 1850 and 1860. In that context, it reiterates its grave concern at the humanitarian situation in Gaza and stresses the need for sustained and regular flow of goods and people to Gaza as well as unimpeded provision and distribution of humanitarian assistance throughout Gaza.

The Security Council underscores that the only viable solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an agreement negotiated between the parties and re-emphasises that only a two-State solution, with an independent and viable Palestinian State living side by side in peace and security with Israel and its other neighbours, could bring peace to the region.

The Security Council expresses support for the proximity talks and voices concern that this incident took place while the proximity talks are underway and urges the parties to act with restraint, avoiding any unilateral and provocative actions, and all international partners to promote an atmosphere of cooperation between the parties and throughout the region.

UNSCR 1860 and Abbas: clearly irrelevant

It is only proper that UNSCR 1860 and Mahmoud Abbas would vanish into nothingness on the same day: UNSCR 1860 was rejected by both Israel and Hamas, and Abbas' term as President of the Palestinan Authority expired today.

This is all good news, really. Now that these irrelevancies have been set aside the clock will be ticking louder and louder for the Israeli war on Gaza and each passing day with strengthen Hamas.

On the ground the situation is still way to early to call, but the fact that Hamas stood its ground for two weeks is, I think, rather encouraging.

The Israeli Air Force and Navy has run out of meaningful targets a long while ago already so its sole purpose will now be to terrorize Palestinian civilians as much as can be, hence the repeated attacks on UN positions. The Israeli ground forces have done the easy job exactly as predicted: the Gaza Strip has been cut into several sections. While the Israelis present that as a meaningful goal, all this really achieves is lengthening the frontlines inside Gaza. So far, the Israelis have clearly been unable to enter, much less so take control, of any urban center.

I would say that Hamas fighters have, so far, done better than I would have expected and this is also an ecouraging sign.

Bottom line: the Israelis have run out of political options now and they will now have to do what they clearly were hoping to avoid: get down to the ugly business of trying to fight the Palestinian resistance.

Russia's representative at the UNSC blasts the West's hypocrisy

Serbia's statement to the UNSC

UN Security Council must urgently condemn Pristina’s intent to unilaterally declare Kosovo independence

Belgrade/New York, Feb 14, 2008 – Serbian Minister of Foreign Affairs Vuk Jeremic pointed out tonight in his address before the UN Security Council in New York that the Security Council must urgently act to condemn the clear intent of the authorities in Pristina to unilaterally, illegally, and illegitimately declare independence from the Republic of Serbia as well as to reaffirm the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of Serbia, including Kosovo.


The Serbian government website brings Minister Jeremic’s address in full:

Mr. President,
Excellencies,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

There was a time when the final authority of the United Nations Security Council was not fully respected, when its ultimate legitimacy was discounted, and when its capacity to act was restricted. That time was the Cold War, and that time has passed.

Today, we no longer view international politics as a winner-take-all contest.

The Security Council—and the United Nations system as a whole—is once again the crucible of human hope for peace and security, the focal point of trust, and the center of our confidence in the concord to come.

Today, we embrace the global diversity of views. We believe it makes us stronger as a world community. And we judge that the world is a better place, full of the possibility that comes with the secure knowledge that our destiny is inexorably tied to one another’s.

Mr. President,

Since the democratic overthrow of the regime of Slobodan Milosevic in October 2000, the citizens of our country have regained their freedom and started enjoying the benefits of peace. We have toiled unceasingly to provide a prosperous future for all, under the roof of a united Europe. And we have done so while working hard to advance reconciliation with our neighbors—a cornerstone of our policy to break with the legacy of the Balkans’ recent past.

For the first time in history, the region is well within reach of the point of no return.

Our success to date has been a great victory for all who believe that belonging to Europe is good for Serbia, good for the Balkans, good for all the nations of the Old Continent.

And yet, Excellencies, we have been informed of a deliberate intention to dramatically set back progressive development throughout the region. If allowed to stand, the adverse consequences for not only the Western Balkans, but the world community as a whole, will be grave.

The imminence and scope of this threat brings me here before you this afternoon, as does the expectation that by working together, we can avert a disaster of unfathomable proportions.

Mr. President,

We have received reliable information that the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of our southern province of Kosovo and Metohija, under interim UN administration, intend to unilaterally and illegally declare independence from the Republic of Serbia in the coming days.

Such an illegitimate declaration by the authorities in Pristina would brutally violate Security Council Resolution 1244’s reaffirmation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of a member-state of the United Nations, in this case, the Republic of Serbia, which includes—quite explicitly, according to the text of the resolution and our own Constitution—our province of Kosovo and Metohija.

Mr. President,

The Security Council, together with each and every member-state of the United Nations, has a Chapter VII obligation—a binding obligation—to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of Serbia. This is the plain language of Resolution 1244, and we expect, Mr. President, the Security Council to honor the demands of international law, the requirements of international justice, the principles of the United Nations Charter, and the very language of this Council’s Resolution, as you consider how to respond to the hostile intent of the authorities in Pristina.

Mr. President,

The Republic of Serbia shall not tolerate such an illegal act of secession. If forced to react to events beyond our control, our Government and National Assembly will declare the actions of the authorities in Pristina null and void. And we shall undertake all diplomatic, political, and economic measures designed to impede and reverse this direct and unprovoked attack on our sovereignty.

I must add, Mr. President, that as a responsible member of the international community committed to the peaceful and negotiated resolution of disputes—and as a dedicated aspirant to membership in the European Union—the Republic of Serbia will not resort to the use of force. For violence cannot bring a peaceful settlement to the Kosovo crisis. That is why even in this troubled hour, we repeat our call upon the authorities in Pristina to publicly and unambiguously commit to the process of seeking a compromise solution to the future status of our southern province.

Together, acting with forethought and prudence, Pristina and Belgrade, with the support of this Council, can still avoid setting a precedent that will do irreparable harm to the international system. The precise nature of this precedent must be spelled out.

The unilateral and illegal declaration of independence of Kosovo from Serbia by the authorities in Pristina would constitute nothing less than the forcible partition of a sovereign member-state of the United Nations. The direct and immediate consequence of this act would be the destruction of the first principle of the United Nations, namely the sovereign equality of all member-states.

Such a precedent, imposed on the world community, would echo far, far away, into every corner of our globe. For we would discover that the rushing river of self-determination has become an uncontrolled cascade of secession.

We all know that there are dozens of Kosovo-s throughout the world, just waiting for secession to be legitimized, to be rendered an acceptable norm. Many existing conflicts would escalate, frozen conflicts would reignite, and new ones would be instigated.

Mr. President,

Let me be very clear. The Republic of Serbia shall never accept any violation of its territorial integrity. We shall never recognize Kosovo’s independence. We shall not waiver, we shall not yield, should this cowardly act proceed unchecked. Not now. Not in a year. Not in a decade. Never. For Kosovo and Metohija shall remain a part of Serbia forever.

Make no mistake, Excellencies, the Kosovo Albanians are about to throw down the gauntlet. They have committed themselves to a course of action that would constitute an unprecedented, express and deliberate violation of the United Nations Charter, international law, and the powers of the Security Council itself.

Mr. President,

This is what we believe is required.

First, that the Security Council take effective action to ensure that all provisions of the United Nations Charter and Resolution 1244 are fully respected. Therefore, the Security Council must urgently act to condemn the clear intent of the authorities in Pristina to unilaterally, illegally, and illegitimately declare independence from the Republic of Serbia. Additionally, the Security Council must reaffirm the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of Serbia, including Kosovo.

Second, that the Secretary-General and his Special Representative in Kosovo exercise their authority in this matter. Special Representative Joachim Ruecker must receive clear and unambiguous instructions to make swift use of his reserved powers, as enumerated in the Constitutional Framework for Provisional Self-Government in Kosovo, and, in the event of a declaration of independence by the province’s Assembly, proclaim this act to be null and void. He must also be instructed to dissolve the Kosovo Assembly, on the grounds that declaring independence is not in conformity with Resolution 1244. He has this power. It has been used before. He must be make full use of it once more.

Third, that the international security presence in Kosovo, identified by the acronym KFOR, continue to abide by the legal framework for its operation, in conformity with paragraph 9 of Resolution 1244, and remain status-neutral. Continuing to adopt this approach ensures that all residents of our southern province will remain receptive to its mission to safeguard their lives and property.

KFOR must, Mr. President, demonstrate particular sensitivity toward the Kosovo Serb community, as well as to the clerics of the Serbian Orthodox Church and their monasteries, some of which have been placed on UNESCO’s List of World Heritage Sites, and alarmingly, on its List of World Heritage in Danger. These holy sites stand at the foundation of Serbian identity. They are not simply buildings or mere monuments. They constitute an essential link to the living tradition of Serbia today.

The Republic of Serbia is confident that KFOR has the capacity to prevent a repeat of the ethnic cleansing against the Serb population that took place in the latter half of 1999 and in March 2004, and to protect my nation’s religious heritage against further destruction and cultural cleansing.

Fourth, Mr. President, that the European Union too continue to fully respect all the provisions of Resolution 1244—in particular those related to the authority vested in the Security Council (paragraphs 5 and 19).

Let there be no doubt: the Republic of Serbia welcomes as a matter of principle any demonstration of Europe’s deepening commitment to the Western Balkans. And for that reason, we welcome the EU’s desire to increase its presence in our southern province.

But in order for the EU-led mission to Kosovo to acquire the full international legitimacy so crucial to the fulfillment of its mission, it must first seek a mandate from the Security Council.

Excellencies,

We do not believe opportunities for negotiations are exhausted, because we believe it is never too late to work towards a solution that leads to regional peace and stability.

We do not believe it is ever too late to negotiate about the future—especially when it’s a future we all share.

Is it too late to talk of peace in the Middle East, in Africa, or anywhere else in the world for that matter? Should we just give up—and in the process resign ourselves to the defeat of principles that form the core of what binds us together?

Walking away is not a legitimate option, for it means that we, as a world community relegate ourselves to the fatalism of the past. It means that we are ready and willing to sacrifice geo-strategic priorities on the altar of the communal aspirations of Kosovo Albanians. And it means that we would consciously avert our gaze from the main goal: a European future for all the Western Balkans.

Mr. President,

We have gathered today primarily to address the question of the status of Kosovo. I am here to advise you clearly, and before history, of the status of the whole of Serbia as well.

I intend on setting the record straight, and I intend on being both blunt and undiplomatic.

My nation has suffered enough by being demonized for the 1990s. We are tired of seeing people hide behind the past to justify the abuse of our country today.

That is why we cannot allow a series of lies to be perpetuated into the history books that Serbia has been obstructionist, that Serbia never really negotiated, that Serbia is still a nationalistic country trying to oppress minorities. That Serbia is the cause of the present troubles.

Yes, Mr. President, I have heard these and many more such accusations. And I have heard them from people who should know better. Much better.

In back rooms and hallways, Excellencies, you have been told that every avenue has been exhausted. That a solution must be imposed, for negotiations have not born fruit.

What has transpired in the last two years has not been a negotiation. It has been an exercise in which the end result was made known to all in advance.

The last two years is a record of failure of those who wanted to impose solutions with callous disregard for the most elementary precepts of international law and democratic values.

The record of the last two years is also an indictment of a process that ought to have brought peoples together, but instead forced them apart.

Excellencies, Serbia will not accept responsibility for this abject failure. History will judge those who substituted polemics for principles, and diplomatic theatre for visionary statesmanship.

Mr. President,

I appeal to all the members of the Security Council, as well as all the member-states of the United Nations, to continue to respect, in this time of crisis, the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of Serbia.

We say to you, with the certainty and fortitude of a unified nation: Serbia will never forget.

The preservation of a Serbia whole and free, integrated into Europe and engaged with the world, is the basic tenet of our national interest. This will not change.

We have made our choice. Now is the time for the Security Council to choose, and for the member-states to choose—to choose whether to join us in a defense of the principles we all revere.

For that is the issue before you: whether to destroy or to preserve the sacrosanct character of basic solidarity between sovereign states, the common denominator of the world community.

A moment such as this defines paths of nations. We are a nation, Mr. President, that has struggled over the course of many centuries to defend its freedom, to establish its democracy, and to build its just society.

So it has been, so it is, and so it will be. And so will be Kosovo. Ours to the end. Kosovo will remain a part of Serbia forever.

Thank you, Mr. President, for having given me the opportunity to address this Council at a time of great consequence for us all.