Military Review

The UN - that the pole: wherever you turn, there it happened

22
Washington’s very “interesting” attitude to international law and to such an organization as the UN (which, in theory, should stand guard over this very right).




If we recall the 1999 year (the NATO attack on Yugoslavia) and the 2003 year (the invasion of US troops in Iraq) - in these cases, the country that assumed the role of the gendarme of the world did not apply for a sanction at the UN. This caused a lot of criticism of the aggressor, but, alas, almost ineffectual.

In 2011, when NATO countries, led by the United States, wiped out the Libyan Jamahiriya from the face of the earth, they allegedly did this with the sanction of the UN Security Council. Indeed, UN Security Council resolution No. 1973 was adopted on the no-fly zone over Libya. But in itself, it did not at all provide for the bombing of civilian and even military installations, but concerned only the ban on Libyan flights aviation, “To help protect civilians,” as well as the supply embargo weapons to the country and sanctions against individual representatives of the Libyan government. The result is known: the resolution was "turned inside out," and she simply covered her shameful and criminal bombings of peaceful cities like a fig leaf.

Russia made a definite conclusion from this situation and heroically held back all the efforts of Western countries to push the anti-Syrian resolution through the UN Security Council. In some cases, Beijing joined Moscow, and then the veto was double. It is quite possible that Russia's permanent representative to the UN, Vitaly Churkin, paid for this with his life ...

But, as it turned out, the USA and in this situation found a loophole in this seemingly impenetrable wall of protection.

Of course, directly bombing the Syrian army and the cities under the control of the legitimate government, hiding behind any resolution, did not come out. Although there have already been several similar incidents, - fortunately, they did not play any significant role. However, under the pretext of fighting the "Islamic State" (prohibited in the Russian Federation), Washington nevertheless entered Syria.

And now the head of the Pentagon, James Mattis, in the best traditions of his department and his country, again trying to hide behind the United Nations like a fig leaf.

Answering the question of journalists whether Washington has any legal basis for finding American troops on Syrian territory, Mattis said: “The UN said that we can basically prosecute IS. And we are there to destroy them».

True, the head of the Pentagon did not specify what kind of UN Security Council resolution allows the United States to be present in Syria against the will of the leadership of the Middle Eastern state. Yes, and there is nothing to clarify: such a resolution simply does not exist in nature. Apparently, he has in mind all the resolutions relating to the fight against the terrorists of the "Islamic State", although none of them say that the United States should do it.

As for the leadership of Syria, it has always stressed that it opposes American intervention in the internal affairs of the country. So a few days before Matiss’s arrogant statement, SAR Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Al-Mekdad reiterated that the US presence in Syria was illegal and unacceptable, and demanded the withdrawal of American troops.

The only problem is that The US easily and quickly deployed troops, but forcing them to leave is a long and difficult process.. Suffice it to recall the Iraqi experience. And this time the States are in no hurry to leave, even when they are directly pointing to the door. And they are looking for cover in the face of the UN and set conditions.

According to the same Mattis, the so-called "anti-terrorist coalition" will leave Syria only after the success of the negotiations in Geneva. Washington apparently decided to ignore all other efforts, including the Astana process.

It is expected that 28 November will be held the next round of negotiations between Syria and representatives of the "opposition". It is clear that the United States wants to continue to put pressure on official Damascus. Including, with the help of the troops, the so-called "anti-terrorist coalition", which, of course, is not. BUT in fact, this “coalition” is the most real, albeit a large, terrorist group, which came to a foreign land without the consent of the owners, and daily performs robbery under the guise of "fighting terrorism".

And, of course, every time it is necessary to remind that without the US foreign policy adventures, aimed at overthrowing the authorities in the undesirable states of the Middle East, there would be no “Islamic state” or the Syrian war itself.

Agency "RIA News"Quotes the former UN Under-Secretary-General Sergei Ordzhonikidze, who comments on the statement of Mattis:"They are there ... on illegal grounds and are now trying to wriggle out of this situation in a rather inept and extremely absurd way. This attempt somehow absurdly justifies the illegal presence of coalition troops led by the United States on the territory of Syria, nobody called them there, and the Security Council did not issue such an instruction».

It remains to add that the United States resembles those cunning, fraudsters and snatchers, about which the Russian people have long written a proverb: “The law is that the pole: wherever you turn, there it is". In this case, the UN is also used.
Author:
Photos used:
RIA News
22 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. solzh
    solzh 16 November 2017 15: 13
    +5
    USA reminiscent of tricks, crooks, and crochets

    Well, Americans are the descendants of all kinds of criminals and anti-social elements who were sent there. All their foreign policy is a crime
    1. Dashout
      Dashout 16 November 2017 15: 22
      +8
      Yeah, they asked the sharpie to explain the rules of the game ...
    2. Mahma
      Mahma 17 November 2017 11: 45
      0
      Americans are descendants
      What about the Cossacks?
      You have 330.000 participating in the green card lottery a year. and all
      are the descendants of all kinds of criminals and anti-social elements?
      1. solzh
        solzh 17 November 2017 14: 05
        +2
        You have taken data from a non-reliable source. I quote your source: “330 Russians participated in the Green Card lottery this year. 000% more than last year! ” Stevens tweeted.

        Can Stevens be Trusted?
        Moreover, Green Card does not mean automatic citizenship.

        In 2015, 2 thousand people left Russia, whose fortune exceeds $ 1 million. These "patriots" are not the fact that they earned their hard-earned money by honest labor.
        1. Mahma
          Mahma 17 November 2017 15: 07
          0
          About Cossacks, which is characteristic, they did not answer, but about 330.000, and if it is 250.000 a little? And they all too
          are the descendants of all kinds of criminals and anti-social elements?
          1. solzh
            solzh 17 November 2017 16: 54
            +2
            Once again: green cards do not automatically mean citizenship. And that doesn’t mean that those hundreds of thousands want US citizenship.

            And with the Cossacks everything is fine. Moreover, Cossacks have been known since Prince Svyatoslav.
            1. Mahma
              Mahma 17 November 2017 17: 34
              0
              And with the Cossacks everything is fine
              are not descendants of all kinds of criminals and antisocial elements? And if I find that not.
              And that doesn’t mean that those hundreds of thousands want US citizenship.
              But they are turning. What for?
  2. Masya masya
    Masya masya 16 November 2017 15: 21
    +9
    The UN - that the pole: wherever you turn, there it happened

    One correction ... where the states are turned, it turned out ...
    1. Boris55
      Boris55 16 November 2017 15: 39
      +1
      Quote: Masya Masya
      ... where the states are turned, that’s what happened ...

      They can spoil the little things, but the big ones - they stumble upon our veto.
      1. solzh
        solzh 16 November 2017 15: 47
        +2
        Answering journalists' question whether Washington has any legal grounds for the presence of American troops in Syrian territory, Mattis said: “The UN has stated that we can, in principle, pursue ISIS. And we are there to destroy them. ”
        True, the head of the Pentagon did not specify exactly which UN Security Council resolution allows the US to be in Syria against the will of the leadership of the Middle East state. And there’s nothing to clarify here: such a resolution simply does not exist in nature

        The USA is on our veto, somehow far along ... Americans always find ways to circumvent any veto, they are still not good people (if they, in particular the US government, can be called that).
        They can spoil the little things, but the big ones - they stumble upon our veto
        .
      2. Kent0001
        Kent0001 16 November 2017 23: 54
        0
        And ....... Yes, they are our army on our veto.
  3. Dormidosha
    Dormidosha 16 November 2017 15: 41
    +1
    GoDuras !!!! Mra zo topo kind ... what kind of people? WHAT COUNTRY?
  4. Thunderbolt
    Thunderbolt 16 November 2017 16: 15
    +3
    True, the head of the Pentagon did not specify what kind of UN Security Council resolution allows the United States to be present in Syria against the will of the leadership of the Middle Eastern state. Yes, and there is nothing to clarify: such a resolution simply does not exist in nature. Apparently, he has in mind all the resolutions relating to the fight against the terrorists of the "Islamic State", although none of them say that the United States should do it.
    It’s too late to drink Borjomi when at the UN Security Council in my time we never heard a clear condemnation that the United States grossly violates Syrian sovereignty under the false pretext of fighting IS.
    And on the contrary, our top political leadership through the General Staff established the so-called "direct line" with the Coalition to prevent incidents in the sky. Such a conciliatory position only strengthened the position of the Coalition in this region, divided Syria into spheres of influence .. And the shelling of the Syrians by the Tomahawks made it completely clear to the Americans that we are not inclined to violent confrontation After this incident (when we evacuated, and did not fight back), all that remains is to wildly resent the insolence of the Yankees. But in any war (even if indirect, semi-hybrid), one can respond to force only by force. No tricky answers are not here They work. There are only two ways in the Syrian war: either our Air Force “push” their Air Force out of the Syrian sky or establish a “direct line” and try to agree. The second option is obviously weaker, because. Americans, by definition, are non-negotiable unless it’s good for them to poke them or threaten to immediately hit, shoot down their missiles, planes or sink their ships in case of escalation. Therefore, the article does not make sense, because the Crazy Dog (and all American aggressive policy) they do not respect the UN and act impudently and treacherously --- this is all well known! Now discuss each replica of them, perhaps)))
  5. afrikanez
    afrikanez 16 November 2017 16: 40
    +1
    Making a vampire stop drinking blood is useless. He can do this only when he is already tired or not climbing.
    1. Maria
      Maria 20 November 2017 14: 50
      0
      Quote: afrikanez
      Making a vampire stop drinking blood is useless. He can do this only when he is already tired or not climbing.

      no - only by driving him an aspen stake
  6. Wolka
    Wolka 16 November 2017 17: 13
    0
    UN headquarters should be removed from the us to a neutral country, for example, to Sweden, or say to Switzerland ...
  7. Sergey-8848
    Sergey-8848 16 November 2017 17: 37
    0
    It’s good for the United States that you can stagger around the world anywhere behind the UN: “They said it was necessary ...” Now it’s the fight against IS, and tomorrow global warming, the fight for penguin freedom or some other horror story will be the motive.
  8. SCHWERIN
    SCHWERIN 16 November 2017 17: 48
    +1
    My opinion is that the location of the UN needs to be changed. I understand the staff, life for them in the States is paradise. I myself have been there many times (in the States) and I can attest to this. World standards in many respects, service in restaurants and cafes, hotels in shops, etc. And do not throw rotten eggs at me, but we must run, not run. But one must strive. But not suitable for the UN. The staff merges with the authorities, their people appear and possibly corruption.
    Need a rotation. And what problems? Look, how to prepare for the Olympics, everything was found. And money and building materials and volunteers. Countries are fighting for the right to the Olympics. Why not fight for the right to accept the UN? This stagnation must be destroyed.
  9. iouris
    iouris 16 November 2017 23: 02
    0
    The UN position for a great power, which is ready to defend its position, does not matter. It doesn’t matter where and who turns the drawbar. The problem is that some are harnessing.
  10. savage1976
    savage1976 17 November 2017 01: 54
    0
    Well, why not carry these Yankees from the territory of Syria in bags. To inflict a couple of good volleys of Tornado or something like that and say that it was the terrorists who sabotaged the democratic forces, and already lead Syrian government troops to uninhabited territory.
    1. iouris
      iouris 17 November 2017 02: 32
      0
      Fearfully. USA is an offshore. Children and money are kept in the USA. Yes, and the brains flowed there too.
  11. intuzazist
    intuzazist 19 November 2017 06: 42
    0
    Quote: Mahma
    Americans are descendants
    What about the Cossacks?
    You have 330.000 participating in the green card lottery a year. and all
    are the descendants of all kinds of criminals and anti-social elements?

    This is 330 shnikov and Jews who want the "American happiness." ................................