This bold negation is one of the
few cases when the use of a veto showed itself as virtuous at the UN´s Security
Council.
The bad faith of USA, Israel,
France and England is an affront, data
venia, to our intelligence when, at the UN´s Security Council, they distort
(childishly, one might say) what the Charter of the United Nations says in its
Chapter 7, articles 41 and 42, by answering to interests which are merely
strategical and political — especially with regards to Israel.
The representatives of those
countries start from the premise – very clear to them – that the planet is made
of ignorant and semi-illiterate people who don´t even bother to read what the
aforementioned Charter clearly states. The Charter is being falsely used as
legal grounds for the deposition of Syria´s president, someone who is a loyal
political ally of Iran. Once the Syrian government is undermined, Lebanon will
be subject – whenever it is deemed convenient by Netanyahu´s “hawks” - to an occupation by Israeli troops without
much resistance from Hezbollah, an entity which is currently supported by the
Syrian government.
In summation, the fall of Assad
shall be a triple victory to the current Israeli government, since it would
eliminate three of its adversaries: Hezbollah, Syria and, afterwards, Iran,
which has already started to be economically suffocated. Also, there will be an
additional advantage – the fourth one: deflecting the world´s attention from
the need to create the Palestinian State. In the current pre-war tension in
relation to Syria and Iran, “there is no atmosphere for talks regarding a
distinct border separating Israel from a future Palestinian State, isn´t that
right?” Thus, under Netanyahu´s diplomacy, the “lack of timing and environment”
for the talks with the Palestinian Authority shall be justified.
Once Bashar Assad is deposed
from power, the political turmoil which will take place in the country for
months or even years — as can be witnessed nowadays in Egypt and Libya —, Iran
will be even more isolated and weakened in its pretension to contain Israel´s
thirst for regional dominance, as it already has military, conventional and
atomic dominance. With the pretext of the fear of an Iranian nuclear attack —
something which is not only almost impossible but also remote, considering that
in such an attack millions of Palestinian Arabs would also die due to the
physical proximity — the Israeli government hopes to benefit from the “Arab
Spring”, believing with good reason that by “hunting” Bashar Assad the new
Syrian government which would succeed him would be different, at least with
respect to Iran. If Israel firmly supports the people who are now revolting, it
will demand some political retribution afterwards in exchange for the
help.
Chapter 7 of the Charter of the
United Nations talks about “ACTION WITH
RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION”
— among
countries, evidently! - and not between a government and revolting people
inside the same country. When article 40 mentions “parties concerned”, it
obviously refers to “countries” and not to internal political forces, such as
Syria´s case, as well as Libya’s previous situation. When NATO´s airplanes gave
aerial support and technical ground assistance to the revolting Libyans, Libya
was neither at war nor threatening to invade any country. Nevertheless, it was
attacked, partly in an oblique way, with the excuse of defending human rights.
Even the noblest aspirations can be perverted by political interests.
It is certain that Gaddafi was a
dictator, but the mere fact that a country is ruled by a dictator does not
authorize other countries to depose him. It is even possible that a local
population is satisfied with a strong rule and perhaps fears that a different
government, supported by other powers-that-be, might make things worse, even if
in a more democratic way. Has there been, by any chance, a public poll in Syria
— made by an international entity — in order to know the level of approval or
disapproval of? The answer is no.
Let´s suppose that more than
half of Syria´s population supported Assad´s government before the internal
conflicts and consequential fights. What is the legitimacy that other nations
have to freeze Syrian financial resources deposited abroad?
Let´s imagine — only imagine —
that in Israel the government became dictatorial for any given reason — even
for safety issues — and that part of its population revolted against this
through street riots, which were then followed by repression. Question: would
it be possible for other countries, especially the Arabs, to “strangle” Israel
by forbidding its foreign trade and threatening its existence through bellicose
interventions? Any Israeli lawyer would say that such interventions, whether
economical or military, would be a violation of Israel´s sovereignty. That is
exactly what has been happening with Syria, with a false reading of the
articles from the Charter of the United Nations.
Has there been a partial
rebellion – partial, nonetheless — of Syria´s population against a dictatorial
regime which started at the time of Bashar Assad´s father? Yes. But wouldn´t it
be reproachable for the government to violently repress such manifestations?
Yes, if such manifestations were really peaceful. In order to know this, it
would have been necessary to have most speeches from that time recorded. Once
the physical conflict between the revolting people and the government started,
there were hundreds of deaths in both sides.
In the American Civil War, in
which the South wanted to segregate from the North, there was a great carnage,
with about 600.000 dead people. The conflict lasted 5 years, from 1861 to 1865,
and the country was ruined. Nevertheless, no other country interfered in the
conflict, respecting local sovereignty. They thought: “It is up to the
Americans to decide if the nation shall be divided or not into two parts”. This
respect for sovereignty is being violated these days by attempts to crush the
only two countries — Syria and Iran — that try to contain the predominance of a
regional atomic power which has decided to keep the nuclear monopoly in the
region and unfortunately is being led with arrogance by its current government.
Do I need to mention any names?
Let´s imagine that, when George
W. Bush was elected with all that controversy surrounding the decision about
the recount in Florida, Al Gore, the candidate of the Democrats, did not accept
the defeat, deeming it suspicious, and an internal conflict, similar to a civil
war, started from that resulting in hundreds of deaths. Would it be licit — we
might ask — for China and other countries to vote sanctions and possible armed
interventions against America, with the grounds of avoiding a civil war in
American soil? Any American would consider this a tremendous absurd. However,
that is exactly what they are trying to do to Syria these days.
In international politics it is
always advisable to suspect the words of the speakers from the countries which
are interested in intervening in foreign internal conflicts. The USA, the
guardian of democracy, was never interested in restoring democracy in Chile,
Brazil, Uruguay and Argentina in their so-called “lead years”. Why? Because it
wasn´t in the “American interest” that leftist government spread all over South
America in a time when the Soviet Union was powerful and a threat. They
perfectly knew about all the violent repression performed by the military
governments, which even tortured dissidents, and did nothing to depose such
governments. It all depends on the current interest, and not on the concept of
democracy. This, by the way, is a word that has a very elastic meaning, so much
so that countries from Eastern Europe which were under Stalin’s domain were
called “Democratic Republics”. Occupied Germany, for example, was
self-proclaimed “Democratic Republic of Germany”.
Even though I am in favor of a
future world government in which each country yields part of its own
sovereignty to a central world government — avoiding the use of force to solve
quarrels between states — the unquestionable fact is that today, in the current
legal conformity of the world, sovereignty is still the rule. This means that
it is up to each country to decide by itself how to structure its own
government. If, for example, Brazil decided to restore monarchy, become a
socialist country or an extreme rightist, other countries would not be able to
impose sanctions against such decisions because sovereignty is in the people,
and not in the opinion of other governments. All these things I am saying are
elementary. But this “elementary” is being violated right now at the Security
Council.
What astonishes the most in this
deformity of what´s written in the Charter of the United Nations is that such
interpretations are given by diplomats with many years of study (as well as
sophisms). The current American representative in the Security Council, Susan
Rice — not related to Condoleezza Rice — got to the point of saying that if
voted by the Security Council, the application of article 42 of the Charter —
the one which supposedly allows for a military intervention in Syria —, such
intervention would not occur. It would be a mere threat, something of a
“paranoid nature” — in the words of the illustrious interpreter of the Charter
of the United Nations —, the Russian argument against the approval of new
sanctions. We might ask: if there is an authorization of an armed intervention,
why assume that such an authorization would not be used after all the effort used
to obtain it?
With or without international
lawfulness, everything points to the conclusion that Bashar Assad will be
deposed, maybe even “hunted” Gaddafi-style if he doesn´t escape in time. Due to
his own lack of ability — a man with little political talent who should have
insisted with his father to have the right to follow optometry, the career he
had previously chosen —, the situation reached a point where a diplomatic
solution is no longer possible. The impression he gives is that he has a
tendency to delegate the unpleasant tasks, such as the task to deal with
“impolite” rebels. The delegation of responsibilities in the command of
governments is inevitable but can be fatal if used without criteria because the
delegates can abuse violence when they are sure they will not be held
accountable for their own actions and decisions.
The movement against Bashar has grown too much, and in politics
what counts is the version, not the fact. Even in international politics, this
haven – or zoo – of fallacies. When a ship starts to sink, rats and passengers
flee. If a fall is almost certain, changing sides becomes worthy because there
will always be a place or position in the winning side. With or without legal
reason, it is more than probable that Assad will be dethroned and the creation
of a Palestinian State will be postponed to a distant and uncertain future.
So that the reader can take his
or her own conclusions regarding the articles of the Charter of the United
Nations related to the real civil war which is currently happening in Syria,
they are transcribed below, as found on the internet. As you can see, the
traditional concept of sovereignty is still in place.
CHAPTER
VII: ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND
ACTS OF AGGRESSION
The Security Council shall
determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act
of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be
taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore
international peace and security.
In order to prevent an
aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the
recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call
upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems
necessary or desirable. Such provisional measures shall be without prejudice to
the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned. The Security Council
shall duly take account of failure to comply with such provisional measures.
The Security Council may decide
what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give
effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations
to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of
economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other
means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.
Should the Security Council consider
that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to
be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be
necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action
may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land
forces of Members of the United Nations.
1.
All Members of the United
Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and
security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and
in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance,
and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of
maintaining international peace and security.
(July
23, 2012)
