$0.00 donated in past month
One-Sided Anti-Syrian Human Rights Council Resolution
One-Sided Anti-Syrian Human Rights Council Resolution
by Stephen Lendman
HRC mocks human rights, It systematically spurns them. It's a de facto US imperial tool. It defiles its own mandate. It does so lawlessly. It does it unapologetically.
HRC was established to strengthen "the promotion and protection of human rights around the globe and for addressing situations of human rights violations and make recommendations on them."
It consistently blames Syria for Western-sponsored crimes. It downplays or ignores proxy US death squads ones. They constitute crimes of war and against humanity. They persist daily. They show no signs of ending.
HRC complicity facilitates greater US intervention. It supports what it's mandated to oppose.
Another so-called US-led "humanitarian" intervention looms. At stake is total war on Syria, mass killing and destruction, devastating an entire nation, society and culture, as well as replacing it with unscrupulous, subservient, corrupt satraps.
Syrians now endure what happens everywhere Washington intervenes. Death, destruction and unspeakable human misery follow.
Afghans, Iraqis and Libyans suffer dystopian harshness. Violence, cruel and usual punishment, as well as deprivation haunt them. Nothing ahead looks promising. Torment reflects daily life.
On June 13, HRC's so-called "analysis" alleges 93,000 Syrians killed. No one knows precise numbers. Navi Pillay serves as UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.
She's a longstanding imperial partner. Power brokers know she's reliable. She's beholden to destructive interests demanding opposition. They control her.
Monthly mass killing "reflects the drastically deteriorating pattern of the conflict over the past year," she said. She stopped short of blaming Washington, key NATO partners, Israel, and complicit Arab states.
"As clearly indicated in the latest report by the Commission of Inquiry on Syria, civilians are bearing the brunt of widespread, violent and often indiscriminate attacks which are devastating whole swathes of major towns and cities, as well as outlying villages," she continued.
"Government forces are shelling and launching aerial attacks on urban areas day in and day out, and are also using strategic missiles and cluster and thermobaric bombs."
Syria was invaded. Assad's acting responsibly. He's doing his job. He's defending his people. Syrians depend on him. Pillay points fingers the wrong way.
She pays lip service only to insurgent attacks. She does so grudgingly. They mostly target civilians. Pillay turns truth on its head. She blames Assad for massacres and other atrocities US-sponsored death squads commit.
She ignores Washington's full responsibility. She shames the position she holds. She duplicitously "urge(s) the parties to declare an immediate ceasefire before tens of thousands more people are killed or injured."
Ending war on Syria depends on Washington calling off its dogs. Pillay knows. She won't say.
On June 11, HRC addressed deteriorating human rights in Syria. A Qatar resolution was presented. Britain, Turkey, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Washington co-sponsored it. They and complicit partners are responsible for daily violence.
Thirty-seven states supported them. Nine abstained. Venezuela alone voted against. It stood resolutely for justice. Russia's an Observer State. It called the resolution one-sided. It ignores insurgent crimes.
Ecuador's ambassador Luis Ballego Chiriboga said resolution proponents "are the ones contributing to continuation of violence by providing arms to opposition groups, thus contributing to the escalation of violence."
Brazil, Pakistan, as well as other Latin American nations raised concerns over failure to denounce weapons supplied insurgents.
Nothing was said about Washington's stepped-up commitment. Insurgent use of sarin and other chemical weapons was ignored.
Costa Rican ambassador Christian Guillermet-Fernandez said:
"If we fail to condemn the transfer of arms in the resolution it is tantamount to adding fuel to the fire."
Venezuelan ambassador Felix Pena Ramos addressed Washington's fabricated claim about Assad using chemical weapons, saying:
"I am sure these are same people who confirmed there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."
Syrian ambassador Faysal Khabbaz Hamoui said:
The resolution "turns a blind eye to the presence of jihadists that come from more than 40 countries. Certain countries that sponsored the resolution have financed, trained and supported them."
Russian Second Secretary Roman Kashaev said:
"The latest one-sided resolution on Syria talks about Hezbollah, but they don't seem to be worried about 1,000 highly-paid and heavily armed rebel groups."
Putin aid Yuri Ushakov called US chemical weapons use allegations "(un)convincing." "You can hardly call it facts," he added. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov scoffed at Washington's allegations.
Putin discussed Syria at an emergency session of his security council. He did so ahead of the June 17 - 18 Northern Ireland G8 meeting.
He, Lavrov and other Russian officials said supplying more arms assures greater conflict escalation.
Former Russian Lebanese ambassador Oleg Peresypkin called it "especially sad that the arms will be coming from the United States because the United States was supposed to play a role in organizing peace conference on Syria."
Washington praised HRC's resolution. It dictated its one-sided language. An official statement said in part:
"(T)he resolution condemns in the strongest terms the continued widespread and systematic violence by Syrian authorities and government-affiliated shabbiha militiasâ€¦."
"The resolution notes the finding of the commission of inquiry that the intensity and scale of the violations committed by government forces and affiliated militia are unmatched."
"The United States welcomes the clarity of the resolution’s condemnation of the massacres taking place in Syria, and the denunciation of the role of foreign fighters, especially Hizbollah, fighting on behalf of the regime."
"Recalling the most recent urgent debate on the massacre in Al-Qusayr, the resolution condemns the influx of all foreign combatants, in particular Hizbollah, whose involvement has had a significant deleterious effect on the human rights and humanitarian situation on the ground, which has serious negative consequences for neighboring countries."
"Hizbollah’s intervention on behalf of the regime is unacceptable, and could have devastating consequences for Syria and the entire region."
"The UN Secretary General, the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and the independent Commission of Inquiry have all condemned Hizbollah’s intervention. It is only appropriate that the HRC do so as well."
"This tragic chapter in Syria’s history began over 800 days ago with the Assad regime’s decision to meet peaceful protests with violence, a response which started this conflict that has killed more than 90,000 people."
"We reiterate our call, united with the Syrian people and members of the international community, for an immediate end to all violations of human rights and abuses, but especially the Assad regime’s egregious, widespread and continued violations of human rights and international humanitarian law."
"The Human Rights Council is again showing its determination and responsibility in using the authority and tools entrusted to it to respond to urgent crises in real time."
"It is also rightly fulfilling the important role of drawing global attention to gross violations of human rights and collecting the evidence necessary to ensure future accountability for human rights violations and crimes against humanity."
Syria’s Foreign Ministry denounced Washington's fabricated chemical weapons use accusations, saying:
"(T)he White House published a statement full of lies about the use of chemical weapons in Syria, based on fabricated information, through which it is trying to hold the Syrian government responsible for such use."
US claims came "after reports affirming that armed terrorist groups active in Syria are in possession of deadly chemical weapons and the technology necessary to make them."
"The American decision to arm armed terrorist groups demonstratesâ€¦.the direct involvement of the United States in the Syrian bloodbath."
"This raises serious questions about their good intentions when it comes to finding a political solution in Syria."
Washington spurns peace. Obama bears full responsibility for ongoing conflict. It won't end until he halts it. Plans call for further escalation.
Media scoundrels urge it. Make it "robust," urge Washington Post editors. They repeated the Big Lie saying so. "Assad crossed (Obama's) 'red line.' " He "us(ed) deadly sarin gasâ€¦.on multiple occasions."
He did no such thing. Post editors know. They lied claiming otherwise. They've urged greater US intervention for months. They're mindless of fundamental rule of law principles.
Removing Assad matters more. Imperial priorities matter most. "(I)t's time for Mr. Obama to recognize that the war in Syria threatens vital US interests," they said. "(T)oo weak an intervention" assures an "(un)acceptable outcome."
Wall Street Journal editors echo WaPo's sentiment. "Dabbling in Syria" falls short, they say. Halfway measures won't work. Insurgents need air support.
Obama doesn't get it. He "doesn't appreciate the strategic stakes" involved.
"Russia, Iran and Syria want to create an arc of influence from Iran to the Mediterranean while demonstrating to America's regional allies that the US is a retreating power that lacks the will to support its friends."
"They are playing to win, while even after this week Mr. Obama appears to be playing not to lose. We know how that usually turns out."
New York Times editors asked "After Arming the Rebels, Then What?"
"Obama's decisionâ€¦.opens the door to an even larger American role. What follows remains to be seen. Times editors expressed concerns. They omitted what most needs explaining.
"Those urging stronger action seemed to have learned nothing from the past decade of war in Afghanistan and Iraq, which has sapped the United States and has produced results that are ambiguous at best," they said.
Times editors ignore fundamental rule of law principles. They're silent on America's imperial agenda. They say nothing about Washington's responsibility for mass killing and destruction.
They call victims perpetrators. They call mercenary death squads freedom fighters. They turn truth on its head.
They and like-minded media scoundrels are complicit imperial partners.
They shame the profession they're part of. Why readers put up with them they'll have to explain.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen [at] sbcglobal.net.
His new book is titled "Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity."
Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.
Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.
It airs Fridays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.