UN R2249 - 'Gang Bang Hajji for Zion'

[Michael K.]

Friday night the UN, meeting in a special session in New York, resolved to declare a battle royale and open season on ISIS controlled areas in Syria and Iraq, apparently erasing their sovereign borders and inviting a mad race to claim swaths of land by various 'great powers'.

http://aanirfan.blogspot.com/2015/11/paris-attack-new-world-order.html?m=1

PARIS ATTACK - NEW WORLD ORDER

Saturday, 21 November 2015

Brabantian writes:

Retired Indian Ambassador M K Bhadrakumar, suggests that, thanks to the Paris operation, we have just seen the brutal enactment by the UN of the 'New World Order' we have all long feared, with Russia formally abandoning its previously claimed respect for national sovereignties, as the UN unanimously declares an open season of bloodshed upon millions of people, where any 'great power' has an open licence to bomb and kill in the Middle East because of 'Islamic State ISIS'.

As M K Bhadrakumar points out, UN Resolution 2249 passed after the Paris attacks, endorsed unanimously led by USA - Russia - China - Britain - France, invites any and all countries to feel free to attack & invade Syria & Iraq, ignoring those countries' own governments ...

(As James R points out: The actual text of the Resolution makes it clear that the resolution only applies to territory under ISIS control. Therefore the forces that have been trying to overthrow the Syrian Government and destroy Syria will not be able to use this resolution to openly attack the Syrian Army or allies forces.)

Turkey has already attack operations on Syria ...

And Israel is now given full international 'legal' licence to attack inside Syria & Iraq.

As Bhadrakumar asks, "What about the legitimate governments of Iraq and Syria, which are UN member countries too?

"The R 2249 simply ignores them as inconsequential entities. This is an appalling stance.

"Russia, which has been shouting from the roof top regarding the sanctity of the principle of national sovereignty to berate the US-led coalition, simply made a U-turn.

"Crass opportunism, pragmatism, tradeoff, diplomacy – call it what you will, but a core principle in inter-state conduct upheld under the UN Charter has been given the pass.

"Is this any different from the rape of Abyssiniya when the League of Nations was alive? ... Clearly, R 2249 opens a Pandora's box ...

"Russia lost the moral high ground it was painstakingly climbing ..."

So Russia, which was invited by Assad into Syria to protect it, has now signed on to giving Turkey & Israel & Saudi & Qatar & UK & France & others, the right to 'legally' bomb & attack Syria as they have long been doing via their support for their 'Islamic State' covert vehicle.

http://blogs.rediff.com/mkbhadrakumar/2015/11/21/shame-on-un-security-councils-p-5-members/

Shame on UN Security Council's P-5 members!

The United Nations has unanimously passed the resolution tabled by France on fighting the extremist groups operating in Syria and Iraq. The speed with which this has happened is partly explicable by the sense of horror over the terrorist strikes in Paris and partly by the fact that the Islamic State (IS) has drawn the blood of the citizens of all the P-5 world powers in such a short span of time. This was beyond the capability of the al-Qaeda. Unsurprisingly, the P-5 harbor a strong revenge mentality, having been made to look impotent.

But, when baser instincts trump reason, there is cause to worry, and Resolution 2249 on Counterterrorism adopted last night in New York generates serious misgivings.  First, what does R 2249 say? The following passages are the most significant:

"By its violent and extremist ideology, its terrorist acts, its continued gross systematic and widespread attacks directed against civilians, abuses of human rights and violations of international humanitarian law, including those driven on religious or ethnic ground, its eradication of cultural heritage and trafficking of cultural property, but also its control of significant parts and natural resources across Iraq and Syria and its recruitment and training of foreign terrorist fighters whose threat affects all regions and Member States, even those far from conflict zones, the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant constitutes a global and unprecedented threat to international peace and security."

The resolution also 'calls upon all Member States that have the capacity to do so take all the necessary measures ... on the territory under the control of ISIL in Syria and Iraq, to redouble and coordinate their efforts to prevent and suppress terrorist acts committed specifically by ISIL'.

The resolution also repeated the earlier mantra on Member States "to intensify efforts to stem the flow of foreign terrorist fighters to Iraq and Syria and to prevent and suppress the financing of terrorism, and reaffirmed that those responsible for terrorist acts, violations of international humanitarian law or violations or abuses of human rights must be held accountable". It also cited the group's its control natural resources in Iraq and Syria and its "recruitment and training of foreign terrorist fighters whose threat affects all regions and Member States, even those far from conflict zones."

But the operative part is that R 2249 mandates intervention in Syria and Iraq by those member states "that have the capacity to do so". This is an extraordinary UN Security Council mandate – no one is in charge, but everyone is in charge – that is, all those member countries that have the political will and the military muscle to intervene in Syria and Iraq.

What about the legitimate governments of Iraq and Syria, which are UN member countries too? The R 2249 simply ignores them as inconsequential entities. This is an appalling stance. Russia, which has been shouting from the roof top regarding the sanctity of the principle of national sovereignty to berate the US-led coalition, simply made a U-turn. Crass opportunism, pragmatism, tradeoff, diplomacy – call it what you will, but a core principle in inter-state conduct upheld under the UN Charter has been given the pass. Is this any different from the rape of Abyssiniya when the League of Nations was alive?

On a practical plane, too, a host of issues come up if — rather, when — the UN member countries "that have the capacity to do so" begin to invoke the UN mandate to step up their military intervention in Syria. In fact, no sooner than the R 2249 was adopted in New York, Turkey's F-16 aircraft scrambled to cross the border into Syria to take "the first step" to create a 'no-fly-zone' and 'safe area' within northern Syria. In good measure, Turkey has also threatened Russia with "serious consequences" unless it ceased its air attacks on the region "as early as possible". According to Turkish reports, four American F-15 fighter aircraft also took part in the operation in the early morning today in support of the "first step" to create the 'safe area'. (Read my article in Asia Times Turkey gets toehold on Syrian territory, finally.)

And, paradoxically, what has been Turkey's track record in Syria? It is the godfather of the IS. (Read a research paper by Columbia University, here, detailing Turkey's underhand dealings with the extremist groups in Syria.) Again, one of the countries with the most compelling concern over the terrorist threat emanating from Syria happens to be Israel, which of course, figures in the UN documents as a promoter of the Nusra Front, an al-Qaeda affiliate, in Syria. But then, curiously, Israel reserves the right to define its targets under R 2249.

Russia and Iran may not think Hezbollah to be a terrorist group, but Israel most certainly does. Make no mistake, Israel regards the involvement of Hezbollah and Iran in the Syrian conflict as the number one 'terrorist' threat to its national security. Does Israel possess "the capacity to do so"? You bet it does. Can anyone object to the legitimacy of Israel's concerns? Even if anyone were to object to, will Israel be stopped on its tracks if and when it decides to "take all necessary measures" in Syria and Iraq to protect its national security interests? According to reports, during his recent visit to Washington, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pressed the case for US backing for an Israeli military intervention in both Iraq and Syria. 'Bibi' was apparently confident that Israeli pilots can do a first-rate job to vanquish the IS from the face of the earth.

Clearly, R 2249 opens a Pandora's box. Like the old saying goes, too many cooks spoil the broth. This is no way to wage the war against terrorism. The war against terrorism cannot be fought with cruise missiles and long-range strategic bombers alone, which make spectacular PR stuff for arms exports. This war also involves a painstaking political battle, which is, perhaps, the most crucial battle to be fought. But R 2249 is silent on that score. How can one overlook that the IS didn't arise from thin air? If IS attracts Chechens, Uighurs and Muslims from the slums of Paris in their hundreds or thousands, why is it happening? Simply put, whose hand is it that is clean without blood stains, amongst the P-5 member countries?

To my mind, the IS problem is much much more than one of terrorism. This needs to be understood. (Read an excellent essay by William Polk This Is How Paris Fits into ISIS's Long-Term Strategy.)There is a whole history of injustice, manipulation, coercion, repression and state violence against the Muslim peoples in various regions through our modern history that cannot be pushed under the carpet. All that R 2249 can achieve is that it will legitimize the horrendous violence that is about to be let loose in Syria and Iraq by the interventionist powers in the coming months. Russia lost the moral high ground it was painstakingly climbing. It should not have got carried away by the dizzying thought that last night its diplomats stood shoulder to shoulder with their Western counterparts for the first time after the coup in Kiev in February 2014.

[Michael K.]

http://atimes.com/2015/11/turkey-gets-toehold-on-syrian-territory-finally/

Turkey gets toehold on Syrian territory, finally


BY M.K. BHADRAKUMAR on NOVEMBER 21, 2015 in ASIA TIMES NEWS & FEATURES, MIDDLE EAST

The cloud of uncertainty is lifting about any new directions of Turkish policies on Syria following the parliamentary elections three weeks ago, which led to a great political consolidation by President Recep Erdogan. The policies will run in the old directions – regime change in Syria – as per Erdogan's compass, which was set four years ago, but they will be vastly more visible in the 'kinetics'.


That is the assessment one can make regarding the extraordinary demarche made by Turkey on Friday threatening Russia with "serious consequences" unless the latter ended this military operation (air strikes) "as early as possible" in northern Syria close to the Turkish border inhabited by the Turkmen tribes. Importantly, the Turkish threat was generic in character and not specific to any particular incident.

The Turkish diplomacy has a long tradition running through centuries and the timing of the demarche cannot be coincidental. Moscow reports had disclosed just the previous day, Thursday, that Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will be traveling to Turkey on November 25 to discuss Syria.

An easy explanation is possible that Turkey decided to set the agenda for Lavrov's talks on coming Wednesday that would devolve upon the parameters of the Russian operations in northern Syria that will not cross Turkey's 'red lines'. The exceptionally strong words used by Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu regarding the "bloody and barbarian" Syrian regime leaves very little to the imagination as to how Erdogan views the prospect of Assad's future role. The last known Turkish stance is that Erdogan can tolerate Assad for a maximum period of six months during the transition.

However, it is wrong to conclude that the Turkish demarche is a mere tactical ploy. There is also the backdrop of the robust Turkish push for establishing a 'no-fly zone' in northern Syria to be kept in view. The demarche is linked to a live broadcast by Erdogan on Wednesday where he underscored that the creation of 'no-fly' and 'safe' zones is crucial to resolving the Syrian crisis.

The reports from Turkey through the one-week period had indicated that there is a joint Turkish-American military effort under way to fasten the border with Syria. Washington has been cagey about admitting the scale of involvement of the US military, but did not deny the Turkish media reports conclusively, either.

At any rate, the strategic ambiguity has just ended. The 'breaking news' from Ankara says Syrian opposition group Al-Sultan Murad Brigades "supported by Turkish and US war planes took control of two Turkmen towns in northern Syria" early Saturday. The reports say six Turkish F-16 aircraft, four US F-15 fighter jets and an American AC-130 took part in the operation along with three drones.

The Turkish security sources have been quoted as claiming that the joint Turkish-American move is the "first step for the creation of a Daesh-free zone in northern Syria (which) will further encourage the opposition forces to fight Daesh terror and help ensure Turkey's border security".

In strategic terms, a defining moment has been reached in the Syrian conflict – the "first step" in the creation of a swathe of land in northern Syria that will be out of bounds for military operations by Syrian government forces, Russian aircraft, or various militia groups such as Hezbollah who are fighting on the side of the Syrian regime.

Put differently, the race for Aleppo has begun. The point is, the Turkish-American operation comes at a time when with Russian air cover, Syrian government forces are struggling to retake Aleppo, which has been under the control of opposition groups for two years. To be sure, the Turkish demarche on Friday threatening Russia with "serious consequences" falls in perspective.

The US role in this daring Turkish enterprise remains hidden from view. Senior US officials, including Secretary of State John Kerry, are credited with privately expressing views supportive of the Turkish proposal on free-trade zone, and leading Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has openly backed the idea, but President Barack Obama has so far preferred to stand in the shade with an ambivalence that appeared to weigh against the 'no-fly zone'.

But if the latest reports coming from Turkey are to be believed, Obama has given the green signal, finally, for direct American military participation in creating the 'safe zone' in northern Syria. Indeed, on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Turkey last week, Obama and Erdogan had the opportunity for holding in-depth discussions on Syria.

Erdogan's hard-hitting remarks on Wednesday regarding 'safe' zones in northern Syria – and the Turkish demarche on Friday with Moscow – could only have been on the basis of the certainty that Obama is willing to hold his hands.

Erdogan is also cashing in on the refugee crisis plaguing Europe and the US. In the downstream of the terrorist strikes in Paris, there is widespread panic in the West that giving asylum to refugees from the Muslim world will be tantamount to opening the doors to terrorists.

An opinion is building up in the US too against Obama's plan to give asylum to a few thousand Syrian refugees. The growing preference is that if conditions are made available for the displaced people of Syria to stay put in 'safe zones' on Syrian soil, they have no reason to seek asylum abroad.

The Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson, the retired neurosurgeon who recently compared the Obama administration's proposal to vet the Syrian refugees to handling a "rabid dog", was probably tapping into the groundswell of opinion in the US when he said on Friday, "I think it actually makes a lot more sense and we can provide them with humanitarian support... You're not going to get one faction or another in control (in Syria) without a great deal of strife, but you might be able to form a coalition government, at which time you may be able to repopulate the area (and) repatriate the citizens there."

The European Union too is pressing Turkey to somehow stop the flow of refugees heading for Europe. The entire Schengen visa system, a flag carrier of the European project, is breaking down. The EU has offered Turkey 3 billion euros as incentive for not encouraging the Syrian refugees to move on to the greener pastures of Europe.

Suffice it to say, Erdogan has been shrewd enough to assess that the hour has come to put into implementation the creation of a 'no-fly' and 'safe' zone on Syrian soil. Of course, while doing so, Turkey will be pursuing grand ambitions, including territorial ambitions, that go far beyond humanitarian considerations. But that lies in the womb of time.

For the present, Turkey sees the 'Balkanization' of Syria to be inevitable, and as happens in such situations, the early bird catches the worm. Turkey is moving in to press its historic claim to the inheritance that it was unjustly denied when imperial Britain unilaterally apportioned the lands of the erstwhile Ottoman Empire in the Levant and Mesopotamia.

Erdogan will watch how Moscow reacts. The Turks have great mastery in 'salami tactics'. Erdogan gets an opportunity to sit down with President Vladimir Putin in late December when the Turkish-Russian High-Level Council is due to meet in the southern Russian city of Kazan.

(Copyright 2015 Asia Times Holdings Limited, a duly registered Hong Kong company. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)