Already in 18 years, this distinguished Korean traveled to the USA (as part of the American Red Cross program, under the strict guidance of which the smart teenager practiced English), where John Kennedy himself shook his hand. In 1970, the young man received a bachelor's degree in international relations from Seoul National University. In 1975, the young Pan worked tirelessly in the United Nations section of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Korea. "Advanced training" Pan in the United States. In 1985, he received a master's degree in public administration from the School of Management. D. Kennedy at Harvard University.
Further, Ban Ki-moon occupied the post of First Secretary of the Permanent Mission of South Korea to the United Nations in New York. He later became director of the UN department at the central ministry office in Seoul. In 1996, a mature diplomat served as the chief presidential adviser on national security issues, and three years later he became the ambassador of the Republic of Korea to Austria. A year later, our careerist replaced the Minister for Political Planning.
In January, 2004, Pan sat in the chair of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade of the Republic of Korea. In 2006, this man turned out to be one of the candidates for the post of UN Secretary-General, and offered some reforms in the world organization as an electoral program, the essence of which modestly chose not to voice. 1 January 2007 of the year Ban Ki-moon replaced Kofi Annan, and 21 of June 2011 of the year the UN General Assembly re-elected Ban Ki-moon.
This person will “steer” the organization before December 21 of 2016.
Since the beginning of aggressive support by the West, primarily the United States, the so-called "Arab spring" in Syria, Ban Ki-moon has taken a clearly pro-American position. Many of his statements, often made too hastily, as if to please the State Department, and built on so-called "unverified facts" (the term does not belong to Ban Ki-moon, but to specialists from pseudo-journalism; this is an ordinary manipulation of the mind, because untested facts does not happen), impartial person will say a lot about what. In fact, the United Nations in the days of Ban Ki-moon became an American institution, issued as an international one. And it has even become something that gives an unhealthy smell of NATO.
It is enough to cite a few recent examples in order to understand how politically flexible the current leader of the United Nations is and under whose pipe he dances - even while he holds the Olympic torch in Sochi.
Last September, Ban Ki-moon presented to the Security Council a report of experts on the use of chemical weapons. Inspectors confirmed that on August 21 sarin was used in the attack near Damascus. There is “clear and convincing evidence,” the report says. However, the question of who used chemical weapons, remained unanswered.
This did not prevent Ban Ki-moon to condemn at a meeting of the UN Security Council the use of chemical weapons in Syria, calling it a "war crime" and demanding "bring the perpetrators to justice." But everyone knows who the West calls “the“ war criminal ”in Syria. This is definitely Bashar Assad. Therefore, the message of Ban Ki-moon has only one interpretation - anti-Assad.
Earlier, as you know, the American press raised a whole howl about tyrant Assad, who suffocated his own people with sarin. The chemical series about Syria began to be shown on American and Western European TV since March 2013. But the real ninth wave of misinformation and false propaganda has risen after the provocations of August 21. Some "American intelligence officers" stated that Assad troops used chemical weapons, as a result of which hundreds of people were killed. B.H. Obama in the White House was theatrically angry. And then the Pentagon began to frighten Assad with Tomahawks.
But here Russia entered the terrible geopolitical game. The decision to destroy chemical weapons Syrian President adopted on the recommendation of Moscow. 14 September official Damascus signed the "Convention on the prohibition of the development, production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons and their destruction." Experts of the OPCW received information on storage sites and quantities of chemical warfare agents.
B. H. Obama has nothing left but to mumble that such a measure could be a breakthrough in a protracted conflict. At the same time, the US president, not wanting, so to speak, to take positions without a fight, tried to put the blame on 21 August Himatak on Assad troops again: “No one disputes that chemical weapons in Syria have been used. The world has seen thousands of videos and photos testifying to the attack. And humanitarian organizations have reported hospitals overflowing with people with symptoms of gas poisoning. ” And further: “Moreover, we know that the Assad regime is responsible. In the days before August 21, as we know, Assad’s supporters prepared for an attack in the area where they sprayed sarin gas. They distributed masks to their servicemen. They fired rockets from territories that were controlled by the regime in 11 suburbs, from where the regime tried to drive out opposition forces. ”
Then the head of the American state, barely audibly sighing, said that the United States would study Russia's proposal to transfer chemical weapons under international control in Syria and continue to consult with Moscow.
And to the world community, and at the same time Ban Ki-moon, it became clear: B.H. Obama went back down.
Since then, the UN Secretary General has taken a universal position on Syria: everyone is to blame. In January, 2014, Ban Ki-moon сказал: “All parties demonstrated complete disrespect for humanitarian legislation, which provoked humanitarian problems in the country.” Very comfortable position. All bad, America is good. That's what makes it easy to read.
Another example. A month ago, the UN Secretary General reported that Iran and nine other states received additional invitations to the conference on the Syrian settlement "Geneva-2". However, the United States did not like this statement very much. Ban Ki-moon made a suggestion through the media.
Iran’s invitation to Geneva-2 in Montreux should be withdrawn if Tehran does not publicly declare its support for the thesis on the transfer of power in Syria to the transitional government, which was discussed in 2012 at the Geneva-1 conference. This statement was made by US State Department spokesman Jen Psaki, the site reported ITAR-TASS.
Psaki noted that Washington regards the invitation forwarded to UN Secretary General to Tehran as based on the condition that Iran will demonstrate “clear and public support for the full implementation of the Geneva communique”, which was adopted at the meeting of the “Action Group”.
The agreements contained in this document provide for the “formation of a transitional governing body with full executive authority, by mutual consent” of the parties to the internal armed conflict in Syria, Psaki recalled. According to her, “Iran has never done this in public,” and the United States has long sought this out of it.
The instruction was received, and our hero, who was slippery as an eel, immediately changed his statement to the one that was suitable for America. The press noted that Ban Ki-moon, allegedly under pressure from NKRS, withdrew the invitation, choosing the requirement to recognize the results of the Geneva-1 as an argument for refusal, as the State Department understands them.
Comrade Lavrov subjected Ban Ki-moon’s slippery policies to fair criticism. The Russian foreign minister called the wording of the secretary general “slyness”. According to Lavrov, the decision of the Secretary General is nothing but a concession to those who wish to change the government in Syria.
The meeting of Ban Ki-moon in Montreux with the head of NKORS Ahmed Jarboy looked right before the Geneva-2 conference. The relevant UN statement, written in very warm tones, said: “The Secretary General welcomed the participation of the delegation of the Syrian opposition in the January conference on Syria 22. They discussed the inter-Syrian talks, which will begin on January 24 with the participation of the UN Special Representative and the League of Arab States Lakhdar Brahimi and will be aimed at reaching a comprehensive agreement on a political settlement and the implementation of the Geneva communique. ”
Of course, with such double standards protruding from everywhere and an aggressive American installation, no “comprehensive agreement” was born on the Geneva-2 fields.
The following example.
Hillary Clinton, without explicitly declaring it, nevertheless aims to become the US president. Judge for yourself: in the last weeks of Hillary - everywhere and everywhere. Many American and world TV channels and other media are vying with each other to broadcast about the former and, apparently, the future political star. Mentioned by H.R. Clinton in the news and story reports on a variety of occasions - from gossip about Bill's loving husband, to the activities of the former secretary of state in the UN Women's Rights Committee, and even to participation in the meeting of the National Association of Automobile Dealers in New Orleans.
The goal of all these messages in the media and the goal of all speeches is nothing more than a hidden PR campaign. Hillary herself did not explicitly declare that she was going to run for the presidency, but the noise around her person was not accidental. If she wished to leave for political peace, she was a strong-willed person who had the nickname Obama umbrella not so long ago (Obama himself considered something almost a henpecked in the White House), would not only stop any attempts by the press to cover her life but would not have led, for example, such an active and rather tiresome human rights activity. For any such activity, in addition to her, let's say, moral purpose, has a goal to keep your name visible. A woman who fights around the world for the rights of women cannot but try to become the first female president. Especially since once she tried it.
The main electorate of the future presidency is the female audience. Ban Ki-moon is well aware of this. Which by no means can stand aside.
The other day, he addressed a gracious testimony to Hillary Clinton, calling her "the World Champion for the protection of women's rights." Moreover, the UN Secretary General is ready to give Hillary the lead role in celebrating the 2015 anniversary of the UN Committee on Women's Rights in 20.
Better PR for the future presidency and you can not imagine!
And one more example, quite fresh.
Arriving at the Olympics in Sochi, Ban Ki-moon first of all ordered not to offend the blue. As reported "Lenta.ru" referring to the Associated Press, the head of the international organization demanded to stop attacking members of sexual minorities and subject them to discrimination. He said this, speaking with an appeal to the International Olympic Committee.
Here are his words: “We all must stand up against attacks on lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgender people and intersex people. We must ensure that they are not arrested, imprisoned or subjected to discriminatory restrictions. ” “Hate as such is not the place in the 21st century,” the UN Secretary General added.
So that's why Mr. Ban Ki-moon arrived at the Olympics. Preach the Western ideals of LGBT. Or, perhaps, to approve the Olympic standard, forgotten almost from ancient Greek times.
But it was Ban Ki-moon and the president of the International Olympic Committee, Thomas Bach, who were entrusted to carry the flame of the Olympics on the second day of the Olympic torch relay. Noteworthy is one phrase uttered On that day, the UN torchbearer:
"Sochi is a great place for the Games, I am pleasantly surprised by the hospitality of the people of Russia."
The surprise of Russian hospitality is, as they say, “something with something”. Even if the surprise was pleasant. What are you waiting for, Mr. Secretary General? A shed instead of a suite, balanda instead of rich borscht, last year’s compote instead of vodka with the brand Soyuzplodimport?
With such a secretary, only a veto, often used by Russia and China, saves the face of the UN.
Recall that in the 2006 year, being a candidate for the General Secretary, Ban Ki-moon proposed some kind of unspecified reform of the world organization as an election platform. In 2014, we can definitely say: the reforms took place, the organization finally became pro-American.
Observed and commented on Oleg Chuvakin
- especially for topwar.ru
- especially for topwar.ru