Wednesday, September 30, 2015

A masterful Move as Moscow Hosts Conference in Self-Determination

Wayne MADSEN | 30.09.2015 | 00:00

The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency and its «non-governmental organization» carve outs and pass-through operations, including George Soros’s Open Society Institute and the U.S. National Endowment for Democracy (NED), are fond of interfering in Russian internal affairs by championing the secession of autonomous republics from Chechnya and Cherkessia to Karelia and Kaliningrad.

However, in a quite masterful stroke, Russia has given the West a taste of its own medicine by hosting this September a self-determination conference in Moscow titled «Dialogue of nations: the right to self-determination and the construction of a multipolar world». A previous conference with the same title and theme was held last December in Moscow. Both conferences were sponsored by the NGO, the Anti-Globalization Movement of Russia.

The December 2014 conference brought together delegates from Novorossiya (the republics of Donetsk and Lugansk), Trans Dniester Republic, Iran, Syria, the Bosnian Serb Republic, Italy, the United States, and a number of republics and regions of the Russian Federation. This year’s conference attracted delegates from Catalonia, the Kingdom of Hawaii, Puerto Rico (the Taino Nation of Boriken), Western Sahara, and Northern Ireland, among other nations seeking self-determination from the western neo-colonial yoke.

Most movements striving for self-determination and political autonomy in the world today are natural allies of the anti-globalist movement. It is such globalist constructs as the United Nations, European Union, African Union, and Organization of American States that suppress self-determination of people and nations, all in the interests of Western politico-military domination and the interests of multinational corporations to loot the natural resources belonging to native peoples.

Past attempts to create organizations representing aspirant nations and peoples have met with an eventual takeover by NGOs linked to the Soros and globalist networks of control. One such organization, the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization (UNPO), was created in 1991 after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Headquartered in The Hague, UNPO soon drew the attention of unsavory globalist interests that were intent on neutralizing the independence aspirations of a number of territories and regions.

When, in 2002, Karl von Habsburg, a former member of the European Parliament and the eldest son of Otto von Habsburg, the last crown prince of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, was appointed director-general of UNPO, the organization’s fate was sealed. Nothing says imperialism more than a pretender to the throne of the greatest enemy of the national aspirations of peoples and nations than the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Habsburg monarchy. As 19^th century Hungarian freedom fighter and political leader Lajos Kossuth said, «the policy of the house of Austria, which aimed at destroying the independence of Hungary as a state, has been pursued for three hundred years».

There should be little wonder why globalist-controlled groups like UNPO and the United Nations Committee of 24 (the Special Committee on Decolonization) do not consider Scotland, Northern Ireland, Puerto Rico, Hawaii, and Alaska to be colonial contrivances but the Anti-Globalization Movement of Russia does. To suggest that the United States is illegally controlling Puerto Rico, Hawaii, and Alaska is blasphemy to the globalists while UNPO pushes for independence for East Turkestan, Taiwan, and Tibet from China, Balochistan from Pakistan, and the Hmong people from Laos. The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency has long advanced the independence movements of the Uighurs, Taiwanese, Tibetans, Balochis, and Hmong. It is convenient to have NGOs like UNPO, run by people like the Habsburgs, to carry the CIA’s water on support for independence and nationalist movements.

The two meetings on self-determination and a multi-polar world held in Moscow because they have taken the debate on drawing new borders out of the hands of the corporate oligarchs who determine such matters behind closed doors in such secret conclaves as the Bilderberg and Davos conferences and among the Western leaders and their immediate subordinates at private meetings at United Nations and G-7 venues.

If the process toward nations achieving independence was fair, the Cook Islands would be welcomed as the 194^thmember of the United Nations at this year’s 70^th session of the General Assembly. An associated state of New Zealand, the Cook Islands wished to apply to become a full member of the UN. The Cook Islands’ Prime Minister Henry Puna made his intentions clear to the world. The reasoning behind the desire of the Cook Islands to join the world body was based on its graduation from a «least developed country» (LCD) according to standards set by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), an organization binding together the world’s leading capitalist economies. Graduation from an LCD means that the Cook Islands lost needed OECD economic assistance, therefore, it wanted to be included in the UN assistance structure as a full member state.

However, New Zealand’s right-wing Prime Minister John Key, a habitué of the Bohemian Grove summer gathering north of San Francisco that annually brings together the same ilk who attend Bilderberg and Davos meetings, nixed Puna’s proposal. Key said that as long as Cook Islanders retained full New Zealand citizenship, they could not achieve independence. Although the Cook Islands celebrated 50 years of autonomous self-governing status in 2015, Key refused to allow the islands to negotiate a status that would give it enough autonomy to qualify it for UN membership.

Key was adamant against the Cook Islands joining the UN. He said that even if the UN granted the Cook Islands membership -- unlikely since two of New Zealand’s military and intelligence allies, the United States and Britain, wield a UN Security Council veto -- New Zealand would still prevent it. Key said that New Zealand adequately represents the Cook Islands in international settings like the UN. However, former Cook Islands Foreign Minister Wilkie Rasmussen disagreed. He said New Zealand has never treated the Cook Islands seriously on the international stage.

This is the type of neo-colonialist bullying and gratuitous patronage many territories and regions have seen from their governing powers – from that dished out by France to New Caledonia (Kanaky) and Polynesia in the south Pacific to that meted out by the Netherlands to Aruba, Curacao, St. Maarten, Saba, Bonaire, and St. Eustatius in the Caribbean.

The cold shoulder that the Cook Islands received from its colonial administrator, New Zealand, is similar to that experienced by the Danish self-governing territory of the Faroe Islands. When Kai Johannesen, the then-Prime Minister of the pro-unionist government of the Faroes, suggested UN membership for his country while still maintaining its union with Denmark, the proposal was dead on arrival in Copenhagen. For the power players of the West, determining what nations become members of the UN and other forms of recognition are left to those having merely a profit-oriented stake in the futures of emerging nations.

The annual Moscow gathering of nations and groups striving for self-determination has much room to grow in a world where nameless and faceless power brokers of the West decide the very fates of aspiring states. The recent Moscow conference on self-determination of nations was criticized by the house organs of the Soros-oriented elite – The Guardian and The Independent of the UK, the Kyiv Post, and Yahoo News included – as endangering the borders of Europe and North America. It is truly amazing how the globalist power centers react when another country puts their hypocrisy on full display for the entire world to see.

Tags: European Union UN Russia US
SOurce:http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2015/09/30/masterful-move-as-moscow-hosts-conference-self-determination.html

Tuesday, September 29, 2015

Obama, Putin fail to agree on Assad’s fate

News | 29.09.2015 | 10:20

PressTV - President Barack Obama and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin have discussed the crisis in Syria, but failed to reach an agreement on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s fate.

The two leaders met on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York on Monday in a meeting which lasted 90 minutes.

A senior US official described the meeting as "business-like back and forth," while Putin called it "constructive and business-likes" and said the discussion was "very constructive and surprisingly open."

"In my opinion there is a basis to work on shared problems together," but “disputes remain," Putin told reporters following the meeting.

"We have a lot in common," he said, adding "we have sound grounds to work on the points of concern together."

The US official said the two leaders decided that conversations between the American and Russian military officials should continue over the crisis in Syria, but added that Obama and Putin "fundamentally disagreed" on the role of Assad in Syria.

"I think the Russians certainly understood the importance of there being a political resolution in Syria and there being a process that pursues a political resolution," the official said.

However, "we have a difference about what the outcome of that process would be," he added.

Before the meeting, both Obama and Putin delivered speeches to the United Nations General Assembly, during which the two leaders expressed completely different views on Assad.

Putin said Assad is the only option in campaign against the Daesh (ISIL) terrorists, noting he is “valiantly fighting terrorism face to face."

As part of a plan to fight against Daesh Takfiri terrorists, Russia has been beefing up its military presence in Syria, equipping Damascus with advanced military aircraft such as the Mikoyan MiG-31 fighter jets and other sophisticated equipment.

Putin has said that Russia's support for the Assad government was in accordance with the UN Charter, since "we have been providing assistance to legitimate government entities only."

Moscow’s military support for Assad, however, goes against the current US policy, which calls for the Syrian president’s ouster.

Syria has been gripped by deadly violence since March 2011. According to reports, the United States and its regional allies - especially Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey - have been supporting the militants operating inside Syria since the beginning of the crisis.

Der Tod lässt alle Differenzen zurück: Wir trauern um Peter Strutynski

Peter Strutynski starb im Alter von 70 Jahren

Der Friedensforscher Peter Strutynski ist tot. (picture-alliance / dpa / Uwe Zucchi)

Im Alter von 70 Jahren ist der Friedensforscher Peter Strutynski gestorben.

Dies teilte der Bundesausschuss des Friedensratschlages mit, der seit 1994 jährlich in Kassel stattfindet. Strutynski, der auch an der Universität Kassel lehrte, habe es wie kein anderer vermocht, einen Brückenschlag zwischen Friedensforschung und wissenschaftlicher Analyse herzustellen.
http://www.deutschlandfunk.de/friedensforscher-peter-strutynski-starb-im-alter-von-70.447.de.html?drn:news_id=529330Quelle:

Einer der bekanntesten Friedensaktivisten Deutschlands, der Friedensforscher und engagierte Pazifist Dr. Peter Strutynski, ist im Alter von 70 Jahren in Kassel gestorben. Der Politikwissenshaftler, langjährige Vorsitzende des Kasseler Friedensforums und zuletzt Sprecher des Bundesausschusses Friedensratschlag Kassel, starb nach langer schwerer Krankheit in der Nacht zu Sonntag. Die Trauerfeier findet am Freitag, 9. Oktober, ab 12.15 Uhr in der Kapelle des Westfriedhofs statt.

Schlagwörter: Friedensforscher, Friedensratschlag Kassel, Pazifist, Peter Strutynski

27.09.2015

Friedensforscher Peter Strutynski gestorben

Verlust nicht nur für die Friedenswissenschaft, sondern für die gesamte deutsche Linke

Er organisierte den Bundesweiten Friedensratschlag, der jährlich in Kassel stattfand, und trat regelmäßig bei Friedensdemonstrationen als Redner auf - jetzt ist Peter Strutynski nach langer Krebserkrankung gestorben.
quelle:http://www.neues-deutschland.de/artikel/985953.friedensforscher-peter-strutynski-gestorben.html

HISTORIC NEWS: Finally, EU Breaks Away from U.S.

EDITOR'S CHOICE | 12.09.2015 | 22:39

On Saturday, September 12th, United Kingdom’s Labour Party elected as its leader and their candidate to lead the UK, Jeremy Corbyn, who has been the most vocal British critic of the UK’s serving as the lap-dog of an aggressive imperialistic United States of America.

Simultaneously, the leader of German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s own Christian Social Union Party, Horst Seehofer, a man who, prior to his being appointed to be the Party-chief had been Chancellor Merkel’s Agriculture Minister, has now turned against Chancellor Merkel (who until now was the most powerful leader in all of Europe) and denounced her policy on the refugee crisis, and has now stated publicly that Germany should instead ally with Russia and against NATO on the entire Syrian war.

This public statement, which is really a sea-change in history, was reported Friday night, 11 September, in Germany’s leading magazine, The Mirror, Der Spiegel, and it represents the breaking-point in Germany’s foreign policy, finally yielding now to the rapidly rising anti-Americanism within Germany that results from America’s prioritizing America’s war against Russia as being a more important goal than the global war against Islamic jihad, which is clearly the most pressing threat to national security not only within Germany, and not only within all Western countries, but even within Pakistan and many other countries that have majority-Islamic populations, as well as in India, China, and other nations around the world.

Seehofer’s statement simply cannot be ignored by the Chancellor, because it comes from the leader of her own Party (“Christian Social Union” is the Party’s name in Munich and throughout Bavaria, but elsewhere in Germany the Party is called instead the “Christian Democratic Union”). She has mainly ignored German public opinion thus far and cooperated with U.S. President Barack Obama’s war against Russia, which Obama is waging via his proxies in Ukraine, Syria, Libya, and elsewhere. But Merkel now will have to bend; and this could end up breaking NATO itself, since NATO is the international military alliance that was originally against the Soviet Union and that then became against Russia as soon as the Soviet Union ended communism and broke up into Russia and the other nations of the former Soviet Union. That continuation of the Cold War, now against Russia alone, even without the former ideological excuse of there being communism, was initiated by U.S. President George Herbet Walker Bush himself. It was reluctantly picked up by then West-German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, whose protégée was Angela Merkel. “Bush made his feelings about compromising with Moscow clear to Kohl: ‘To hell with that!’ he said. ‘We prevailed, they didn’t.’” (This “compromise” was that NATO not expand “one inch eastward”; the promise that Bush’s own Secretary of State had made to the then-Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, and on the basis of which Gorbachev allowed the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact to end and East Germany to be taken by West Germany.)

And so, the Cold War never really ended in the West (though Gorbachev was promised that it would); but, now, it might be finally forced to end, without a nuclear war (which continues to be the U.S. threat but becomes far less likely without there being allies for that on America’s side), because the current U.S. President’s intensification of the long-suppressed ongoing U.S. war against Russia is becoming too much for Germany, and for many other countries within the NATO alliance, to continue supporting. A serious international movement to destroy all nuclear weapons might even begin now.

The only NATO member-nations that are still highly supportive of America’s ongoing war against Russia are some former member-nations of the former Soviet Union and of the Soviet Union’s equivalent of NATO, the Warsaw Pact, which broke up in 1991 when the Soviet Union itself did. Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, are among the now-NATO, former Soviet and Warsaw Pact, nations that are as anti-Russian as is the American ruling class (which President Obama represents). However, America’s former allies when the United States used to be a democracy, the West-European nations, are now starting to abandon the U.S., and so too are some of the East-European nations that were formerly under the Soviet yoke, such as Czech Republic, and Hungary.

America’s deepest control extended especially into two nations: UK, and Germany. However, the decision that George Herbert Walker Bush made in 1990, and that has been adhered to by his successors, to continue the former Cold War until Russia itself is defeated and becomes added to the America Empire, is now being increasingly abandoned by America’s formerly obedient vassal-nations. The American Empire has reached its zenith, and is now breaking apart.

—————

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

washingtonsblog.com

Obama Handshakes China’s Xi, while Holding Cybercrime Stick in Other

Finian CUNNINGHAM | 29.09.2015 | 00:00

While there were several points of apparent accord reached between the US and China during President Xi Jinping’s state visit, the issue of cybercrime will continue to be a source of tension going forward. Tension that will be unilaterally and cynically exploited by Washington for its ulterior geopolitical aim of demonising and browbeating China.

The problem partly stems from Washington being able to propagate its sly, prejudicial attitude towards China. Smiles and handshakes aside, the United States’ official mentality harbours and projects a demeaning presumption of Chinese guilt over cybercrime.

That mentality is manifest in the arrogant way that the United States government during President Xi’s visit managed to appoint itself as «judge and jury» to arbitrate on this contentious issue.

Washington’s truculent attitude is quite a feat of reality-inversion considering its own proven global NSA spying operations, as revealed by Edward Snowden; as well as its known state-sponsored hacking operations against countries, such as when it ravaged Iran’s civilian nuclear facilities back in 2010 with the Stuxnet virus. That cyberattack was personally ordered by President Barack Obama, according to the New York Times.

Washington’s imperious attitude displayed last week also stands in contrast to Beijing’s efforts to find a mutual partnership on a range of issues, and on cybercrime in particular.

The Chinese leader showed grace and stoicism during his visit to Washington, in spite of the boorish hostility expressed in the American media before and during his stay.

In a six-point plan put forward by Xi on various aspects of strategic partnership, the Chinese president generously offered mutual cooperation and understanding with the United States.

For his part, President Obama reciprocated on initiatives for closer government communication and co-operation over climate change, cultural exchange, reform of the International Monetary Fund, trade and commerce.

However, a sour note – and a big one too – was Obama’s continued implicit insistence that China is the guilty party on the singular matter of cybercrime, allegedly involving corporate theft, intellectual property violation and government espionage.

The New York Times headlined: ‘Obama and Xi Jinping Agree to Steps on Cybertheft’. Though the newspaper added: «But Mr. Obama said that he had told the Chinese president during two hours of meetings at the White House that the escalating cycle of cyberattacks against American targets‘has to stop,’ warning Mr. Xi that the United States would go after and punish perpetrators of those offenses through traditional law enforcement tools and, potentially, with sanctions».

In other words, Washington is framing the issue as a one-sided problem, ostensibly of Chinese transgression against the US.

Over the past six months, the US media have been ramping up a campaign of vilification against China with numerous, and often sensationalist, allegations of cybercrime. Citing anonymous US officials, the American media have run endless articles claiming that Chinese hackers have invaded US commercial corporations and government agencies, harming American economic performance.

One of the biggest alleged violations was widely reported to have occurred at the Office of Personnel Management in which data on up to 22 million US federal employees had been hacked. Major US media outlets claimed that China was to blame, even though no verifiable evidence has ever been produced to substantiate that.

The Washington Post reported in June: «With a series of major hacks, China builds a database on Americans». Based solely on anonymous official briefings and on opinions of private internet security firms, the Post’s article accused China of using private information about federal employees and their families as a means of recruiting spies. With this kind of xenophobic and alarmist reportage in one of America’s supposedly quality media outlets, it is little wonder that an «anti-China» outlook has been fostered among the US public.

China’s government has flatly rejected those allegations as being «unscientific and unreasonable». Beijing also rebuked Washington for conducting foreign policy on the basis of unfounded suspicion.

Obama, speaking in the White House Rose Garden with President Xi at this side, announced that the two countries had now agreed to «rules of the road» to crackdown on cybercrime.

But still there was an insidious presumption in Obama’s words when he said: «The question now is, ‘Are words followed by actions?’» The implication from the American president is that China’s commitment to combatting cybercrime is suspect, and that future alleged Chinese transgressions are to be anticipated.

Obama then added with a sinister tone: «And we will be watching carefully to make an assessment as to whether progress has been made in this area.»

That gets to the heart of the problem. Obama’s words betray an attitude in which China is not being treated as an equal partner in dealing with a mutual problem. Rather, China is being treated as a miscreant whom the Americans are unilaterally putting on notice over future alleged misdemeanours.

«Neither country’s government will conduct or knowingly support cyber-enabled theft of intellectual property, including trade secrets or other confidential business information, with the intent of providing competitive advantages to companies or commercial sectors», reported the New York Times.

That clip from the Times is, at least, tantamount to acknowledging that cybercrime is liable to be committed by criminal elements on both sides.

Nevertheless, it is Washington who is presuming to be the innocent victim, and the «all-knowing» party who alone will determine if China is guilty of any future cyber-transgressions.

Given the American media’s already reprehensible conduct of a lynch-mob campaign against China over cybercrime, we can be sure that more sensationalist allegations of «Chinese hacking» will be rolled out in the future and thereby presented as incriminating «facts».

Then we can expect Obama or his White House successor to intone that China’s actions have not matched its words, and therefore American sanctions are «justified» to penalise Chinese authorities or businesses.

The unproven, and frankly unprovable, American claims against China on the matter of cybercrime therefore appear to be used as a torque on US-China relations. For all we know, the supposed Chinese hack-attacks could actually originate from American agencies for the very purpose of demonising China.

It is a convenient way for Washington to twist, discredit and demonise Beijing. In order to always keep China on the back foot, as having to defend itself from allegations of wrongdoing and untrustworthiness.

Obama’s barely veiled supercilious attitude towards China shows that his words about America «welcoming» Chinese «friendly competition» are disingenuous. On the contrary, Washington sees China rise in global power as a threat to its hegemonic ambitions of control.

The American supposed concern about cybercrime is not on the basis of a mutual or genuine resolution. Instead, it is a contrived issue aimed at exerting control over China and an attempt by Washington to impose a dominant-subordinate relationship.

Washington’s presumption of «judge and jury» on the issue is the telltale evidence of a persistent hegemonic mentality towards China. That mentality will in turn prove to be the source of other conflicts on other issues, whether over territorial disputes or alleged currency manipulation.
Source:http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2015/09/29/obama-handshakes-china-xi-while-holding-cybercrime-stick-other.html

Putins wichtigsten Aussagen von der UN-Vollversammlun

Unipolare Weltordnung, Flüchtlingskrise und Demokratieexport: Putins wichtigsten Aussagen von der UN-Vollversammlung

Mit Spannung wurde heute die Rede des russischen Präsidenten Wladimir Putins auf der UN-Vollversammlung in New York erwartet. Wir liefern seine wichtigsten Aussagen, wie die zur unipolaren Weltordnung, zur „Demokratisierung“ anderer Staaten, zum IS, zur Lösung der Flüchtlingskrise, zur NATO-Osterweiterung und zur Ukraine-Krise im Wortlaut.

Quelle: Kremlin.ru

Zur unipolaren Weltordnung:

„Wir wissen alle, dass nach dem Ende des Kalten Krieges, und dessen ist sich jeder bewusst, ein einziges Herrschaftszentrum in der Welt entstanden ist und diejenigen, die sich an der Spitze der Pyramide wiederfinden, versucht sind zu glauben, dass sie so stark sind und so außergewöhnlich seien, dass sie es besser wissen als andere und sich nicht mit der UN verständigen müssen, dass sie sozusagen automatisch autorisiert und legitimiert wären, ihre Entscheidungen durchzusetzen. Dem steht die UN entgegen. […] Aber die Versuche die Legitimität der Vereinten Nationen zu untergraben, betrachten wir als extrem gefährlich. Sie könnten zum Zusammenbruch der der gesamten Architektur der internationalen Beziehungen führen und dann blieben keine anderen Regeln mehr übrig als das Gesetz des Stärkeren. Wir hätten dann eine Welt, die von Egoismus, statt von gemeinsamer Arbeit bestimmt wäre. Eine Welt, die vom Diktat bestimmt würde, anstatt von Gleichheit zwischen den Nationen.“

„Demokratisierung“ anderer Länder verursacht Zerstörung und Leid:

„Es scheint so zu sein, dass anstatt aus Fehlern zu lernen, Fehler wiederholt werden. So ist also der Export von Revolutionen jetzt unter dem Deckmantel des Exports von Demokratien ein Versuch, der zum Scheitern verurteilt ist. […] Statt Reformen zu erzielen, hat die Einmischung von außen dazu geführt, dass nationale Institutionen und Unternehmen dieser Länder zerstört wurden, statt des Triumphes der Demokratie und des Fortschritts, erleben wir Gewalt, Armut und soziale Katastrophen und niemand schert sich im Mindesten um Menschenrechte inklusive des Rechts auf Leben. Ich frage diejenigen, die das verursacht haben, wird euch jetzt klar, was ihr angerichtet habt?“

IS eine Eigenproduktion und der Kampf dagegen gleicht einer Heuchelei:

„Man hat erst die sogenannte moderate Opposition bewaffnet und ausgebildet und dann sind sie übergelaufen zum „Islamischen Staat“. Der „Islamische Staat“ selbst, kam doch nicht aus dem Nichts. Er wurde auch ursprünglich als Truppe aufgebaut gegen ungewünschte säkulare Regimes. Hat man daran im Irak und Syrien gedacht? Dort ist der IS entstanden und dringt nun in andere Regionen vor und versucht die Vorherrschaft in der islamischen Welt zu erringen. Die Pläne gehen darüber hinaus. Die Situation ist mehr als gefährlich. Es ist reine Heuchelei jetzt über die Bedrohung des internationalen Terrorismus zu sprechen, während man gleichzeitig ein Auge zudrückt vor den Kanälen der Finanzierung dieses Netzwerkes von Terrorismus, auch durch Drogen- und Waffenschmuggel und so weiter.“

Zur Lösung der Flüchtlingskrise:

„Wir wollen eine Resolution verabschieden zur Koordinierung aller Kräfte, die den Islamischen Staat und andere terroristische Organisationen bekämpfen. Einmal mehr diese Koordinierung sollte auf den Grundsätzen der UN-Charta beruhen. Wir hoffen, dass die internationale Völkergemeinschaft in der Lage sein wird eine umfassende Strategie politischer Stabilisierung zu entwickeln, um auch die soziale und wirtschaftliche Erholung und den Aufschwung im Nahen Osten zu fördern. Dann werden keine neuen Flüchtlingscamps notwendig sein, denn diese Welle der Flüchtlinge hat ja zunächst die Nachbarländer und jetzt Europa überschwemmt. Hunderttausende, vielleicht noch Millionen, die kommen werden. Das ist eine neue große und tragische Völkerwanderung und eine harte Lektion für uns alle, einschließlich Europa. Ich möchte hier noch einmal betonen, dass Flüchtlinge zweifellos unser Mitgefühl und unsere Unterstützung benötigen und um das Problem an den Wurzeln anzugehen, bedarf es der Herstellung von Stabilität in den Heimatländern dieser Flüchtlinge, damit sie dort wieder Chancen auf ein würdiges Leben haben.“

NATO-Osterweiterung Ursache für Bürgerkrieg in der Ukraine:

„Indem wir den Frieden und weltweite Stabilität gewährleisten, führen wir die Aufgabe der Vereinten Nationen aus und sorgen für Gerechtigkeit, die es nicht nur für einige wenige auf dieser Welt gibt, sondern auch die Aufgabe für alle anderen ist. Dazu gibt es keine Alternative. Wir können nicht mehr in den Kriterien des Kalten Krieges denken. Bei manchen sitzt das noch immer in den Köpfen. Sie verfolgen noch immer ihre Politik der Ausweitung der Einflusssphäre, der NATO beispielsweise. […] Dadurch stellen sie uns vor eine falsche Wahl. Früher oder später wird diese Logik der Konfrontation in einer politischen Krise enden. Das ist genau das, was in der Ukraine geschehen ist und geschieht. Die Bevölkerung wurde missbraucht und das Militär in der Ukraine wurde missbraucht. Und was hat man nun davon? Einen Bürgerkrieg in der Ukraine. Nur durch die völlige Umsetzung des Minsker Abkommens können wir dem Blutvergießen ein Ende setzen.“

Die gesamte Rede auf Englisch im folgenden Video:

28. September, 2015 18 Kommentare - International

Schlagwörter: Flüchtlingskrise, IS, NATO, Putin, Rede, UN, UN-Vollversammlung, unipolare Weltordnung

ZUM NÄCHSTEN ARTIKELRT Spezial: Russische Initiative in Syrien und der Kampf um Damaskus
ZUM VORHERIGEN ARTIKELDER FEHLENDE PART: Vereinte Nationen mit unvereinbaren Interessen [S2 – E13]

Monday, September 28, 2015

Russia and Iran are Coordinating in Syria to Preserve Regional Stability

Mahdi Darius NAZEMROAYA | 28.09.2015 | 00:00

A lot of negative words have been said about Moscow’s role in the ongoing Syrian crisis by the US and its allies. Starting from August 2015 these claims took a new turn. Reports about Russian military buildup in Syria began. Unsupported by evidence, these reports continued throughout August and September.

Some of the reports speculated that Russian effort has been coordinated with Iran. These reports were linked to claims that Qassem Soleimani, the head of the Iranian Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution Quds Force, had visited Russia to discuss a joint Iranian-Russian strategy in Syria. Other reports claimed that Moscow’s moves were aimed at supporting an exhausted Hezbollah and to even rival Iranian influence in Syria. These reports, however, are nothing more than a misleading conjecture.

Iranian and Russian Cooperation

Reports that Iran and Russia are competing against each other for influence in Syria are false. The main objective of both the Iranians and the Russians is to keep Syria intact. Similar to Russian-Chinese cooperation in Eastern Eurasia and Asia-Pacific region, Iran and Russia are collaborating together in the Middle East and the central portion of Eurasia. From the Caspian Sea and the Caucasus to the Levant and the Mediterranean Sea, Tehran and Moscow have been acting as forces of stability.

The cooperation between Russia and Iran is on the rise. A three-day long joint naval drill at the northern Iranian port of Anzaili in the Caspian Sea was conducted in August. During the exercise the Russian warships Volgodonsk and Makhachkala trained with the Iranian warships Damavand, Joshan, and Peika. Before this, the last Russo-Iranian exercises in the Caspian were held in October 2014.

Throughout 2014 and 2015, Iranian and Russian military officials have conducted a number of high-level communications and meetings. For instance, through meetings between the defense ministers of the Russian Federation and Iran, Sergei Shoigu and Hussein Dehghan a principal agreement was achieved on delivery of the S-300 system to IRI. While in Moscow for an international security conference, Hussein Dehghan also suggested a need for a joint Eurasian effort by Iran, Russia, China, and India to counterbalance the US and NATO.

Aside from comments by Iranian and Russian officials that Iran is examining a possibility of procurement of Russian passenger jets for the Iranian civil aviation, there have also been talks about sharing military technology and the joint development of weapons. This includes the joint manufacturing of military jets by Moscow and Tehran. Russia is also going to help Iran develop its own satellite navigation system, which will be linked or based on Russia’s own Global Navigation Satellite System (GLONASS). GLONASS, like China’s BeiDou Navigation Satellite System, is a rival of Washington’s Global Positioning System (GPS). For its part, Iran is planning on exporting its drone technology to Russia.

Protecting Syria

After being prevented by the US and other NATO members from using their airspace to deliver humanitarian cargo to the Syrians, Russia used an alternative route via Iran and Iraq. Unsupported reports soon began to claim that the government in Damascus was on the verge of collapse. Upping the ante, Washington began sounding the alarm bells about a Russian military buildup in Syria that reminded very much of the previous claims about an Iranian military buildup. What is very telling is that in parallel to these unsubstantiated reports, US, British, and French officials were all calling for Iran and Russia to bring the Syrian government to the negotiating table. What does this say about the situation?

Moreover, both the Russian and Iranian military presences in Syria have been long-standing. Both Tehran and Moscow have military advisors and technicians inside the SAR. Russia has a naval base in the Mediterranean port of Tartus, while the Iranians have military defense agreements with Syria. All of this legal and taking place within the framework of international law.

Is there really a Russian or Iranian military intervention in Syria? If either the Iranians or the Russians increase their military presence in Syria, they would be doing it to preserve regional stability. This means not only keeping the Syrian state intact and coming to the aid of a sovereign government defending its people, but also stopping the expansion of groups like al-Nusra Front, al-Qaeda, and the misnamed Islamic State – something that the US and its allies have deliberately incubated and fuelled in both Syria and Iraq. If the reports are true that Iran, Syria, Russia, and Iraq are forming an anti-ISIS coalition alongside Lebanon’s Hezbollah (that some Lebanese sources call the 4+1), with the possible inclusion of China, the true intentions of this alliance should be kept in mind.
Source:http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2015/09/28/russia-iran-coordinating-syria-preserve-regional-stability.html