Military Review

Unburdened by sovereignty appease the United States by offering to "reform" the UN Security Council

27
In September 2015, the jubilee (seventieth) session of the General Assembly of the United Nations starts, the end of which is scheduled for September of the next. The speaker of the Danish Parliament, the leader of the Danish opposition, representing the Mogens Lyukketoft social democratic party, was elected chairman of the jubilee session of the UN General Assembly.


The session promises to be hot, not only in connection with events in the world, different regions of which are either already immersed or are actively plunging into chaos, but also due to the fact that at the jubilee session representatives of UN member states not burdened by sovereignty come up with a proposal conduct, no less, the reform of the Security Council. Interestingly, these non-burdensome about reforming themselves guessed or suggested who? .. The tip was ...



The fact that the hint for the unencumbered came “from above” is evidenced, for example, by the interview of Mr. Poroshenko to the Voice of America journalist. The President of Ukraine announced that the reform of the UN Security Council, in principle, can fit into one “reform” - depriving the veto of the Russian Federation ... At the same time, Poroshenko is “magnanimous” more than ever - according to him, it’s not necessary to exclude Russia from the UN Security Council let it remain, but without veto power ...

Poroshenko is not the first politician to "rule" countries deprived of a large "partner" of independence, stating the need to reform the UN Security Council by depriving Russia of its veto. Before Poroshenko, the puppets from the “solar” Baltic said the same. Moreover, Poroshenko and his Baltic colleagues refer to the fact that Russia, they say, repeatedly violated the UN Charter, showed aggression, and vetoed exclusively correct and humanistic resolutions. Like, let's take and deprive the veto of the Russian Federation during the jubilee session of the General Assembly, and the UN will immediately turn into a workable organization, and the world will become calmer and lighter ... Well, of course ... Be sure to turn, and how else ...

In order for the initiative to have at least some signs of the probability of incarnation, a chorus of "unencumbered", including Mr. Poroshenko - well, like the initiative "from below" - from "humiliated and insulted" by Russia was connected to its sound Moreover, the real ideologists of depriving Russia of the right to veto in the UN Security Council, apparently, are going to rely on the fact that in the new military doctrine of Ukraine there appeared a description of Russia precisely as an “aggressor”.
The idea of ​​“friends” of Russia is approximately as follows: for a possible deprivation of the Russian Federation of the veto’s rights (that is, they are author’s notes) we will rely on the DOCUMENT, which means the “fact” of Russian “aggression” - on the letter of the Ukrainian military doctrine and on the decisions of of the institutions of "power" of Ukraine on recognizing Russia as an "aggressor". They say, well, here is the proof — Pyotr Alekseevich wrote in black and white a “lawlessness” on the part of the Russian Federation in the doctrinal document, with which it is necessary to put an end to “the whole world community” once and for all ...

The most interesting thing is that when considering the issue of “reforming” the UN Security Council, Kiev, which is an outspoken tool to achieve the interests of the West (and specifically the US), is going to “appeal” to United Nations conventions. Well, if, in order to put pressure on Russia, our "friends" are going to recall the Charter and the United Nations conventional array, then why should Russia not arm itself with the same non-lethal weaponsby removing it from the fuse.

So, Russia is designated an “aggressor”, and on this basis “a proposal has been received” to withdraw from among those representatives of the UN Security Council who have veto power, for, you see, “aggression” of Russia, you see, violates the UN Charter and a number of conventions. In this case, it is worth referring to the fundamental convention in this situation, which defines what “aggression” is in general, and what are the aspects of the extension of this term to certain situations in the world. This is a convention fixed by the UN General Assembly Resolution 3314 of December 14 of 1974. It is necessary to dwell on it in more detail.

It its full version, and here you can bring excerpts:

General Assembly,
based on the fact that one of the main objectives of the United Nations is the maintenance of international peace and security and the adoption of effective collective measures to prevent and eliminate threats to peace and to suppress acts of aggression and other breaches of peace, (...)
Reaffirming also that the territory of a state is inviolable and that it should not be subject, even temporarily, to military occupation or other measures of use of force taken by another state in violation of the Charter, and that it should not be subject to acquisition by another state as a result of such measures or threats of their use, (...)

Approves the following definition of aggression:

Art.1
Aggression is the use of armed force by a state against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another state, or in any other way incompatible with the Charter of the United Nations, as defined in this definition.
(...)

Art.3
Any of the following actions, regardless of the declaration of war (...), will qualify as an act of aggression:
a) an invasion or attack by the armed forces of a state on the territory of another state or any military occupation, however temporary it may be, resulting from such an invasion or attack, or any annexation using the force of the territory of another state or part of it;
b) the bombardment by the armed forces of the state of the territory of another state or the use of any weapon by the state against the territory of another state;
c) blockade of ports or shores of the state by the armed forces of another state;
d) an attack by the armed forces of a state on land, sea or air forces, or sea and air fleets of another state;
e) the use of the armed forces of one state residing in the territory of another state by agreement with the host state, in violation of the conditions stipulated in the agreement, or any continuation of their stay in such territory upon termination of the agreement;
f) the action of a state allowing its territory, which it has placed at the disposal of another state, is used by that other state to commit an act of aggression against a third state;
g) the sending by the state or on behalf of the state of armed gangs, groups, irregular forces or mercenaries who carry out acts of use of armed force against another state that are so serious that it is equivalent to the acts listed above, or its significant participation in them.


And this x.NUMX same convention:
Nothing in this definition, and in particular in Article 3, can in any way prejudice the right to self-determination, freedom and independence of peoples arising from the Charter ...

And on the basis of the points of this document, is someone trying to blame Russia for aggression against Ukraine? They say that the Russian Federation (armed forces) invaded the Crimea, sends mercenaries to the Donbass, occupies, etc., etc.

Interesting, interesting ... But, first, Russia did not invade Crimea for the simple reason that between Russia and Ukraine there was an agreement on the presence in the Crimea of ​​military personnel of the Russian Army (the number indicated in the document is up to 25 thousand). Secondly, the phrase “sends mercenaries to the Donbass” has no legal force, since the LDNR militia, including Russian citizens, do not act in the Donbas on behalf of the state (for comparison, see paragraph g of Article 3 of the convention). And, thirdly, the article 7 of the same document says that the right of peoples to independence and self-determination is a right that is, as it were, above all definitions of aggression. Crimeans made their choice - the territory of the peninsula from the many years of unlawful possession of Kiev by it (possession in violation of the legislative base of both the USSR and the Crimea and Sevastopol) was released, and therefore article seven of the document, like the UN Charter, was fully complied with.

And if someone from the “friends” is very itchy to speak, as they say, “for aggression”, then such people should read the UN Charter, the same convention more carefully, and then compare the letters of these documents, for example, with the following facts:

1954 year - operation PBSUCCESS. US military invasion of Guatemala, organized by the CIA. In the operation to overthrow the government of the country, which tried to pursue an independent policy from the United States, about $ 20 million were invested (materials by O.N. Glazunov). At the same time, the American media, at the request of Washington, called the bloody operation in Guatemala “internal problems of the pro-communist regime.” Internal problems with an external solution? ..

1965-1975 - The Vietnam War (US invasion) with total losses of more than 1,3 million.

1981 year - the beginning of the US campaign and the "allies" in the so-called contras in Nicaragua (Nicaragua for 9 years of confrontation kills more than 50 thousand people, economic losses - about 4 billion dollars, an increase in external debt almost 10 times).

1983 - The United States actually leads a coalition of states intervening in Lebanon. It is the invasion of American forces that leads to the bloodiest phase of the civil war in the country.

Same year 1983 - Operation “Urgent Fury” (“Outbreak of Rage”). This is the US invasion of Grenada with a formal statement about "helping Grenada to stabilize the situation in the country." The real goal is the occupation of the island and the overthrow of the pro-Soviet power with the execution of the head of government Maurice Bishop. Executions of disagreeable leaders, either on behalf of local residents or on behalf of international courts (spontaneous or perpetrated after “judicial” decisions) and subsequently will become a kind of calling card of the US invasion of foreign states (Iraq and Libya as examples, Yugoslavia can also be attributed to how Milosevic "died" in prison).

Unburdened by sovereignty appease the United States by offering to "reform" the UN Security Council


1986 year - Operation "Canyon Eldorado." The bombing of Libya by American aircraft. The bombing was preceded by accusing the Libyan authorities of Washington in support of international terrorism.

1988 year - Awarding the captain of the US missile cruiser USS Vincennes, from which the missile was launched on a passenger airliner Iranian airline. The attack killed 290 people.

1989 year - Operation “Just Cause”. As part of a true “right cause” of December 20, the United States invades Panama under the slogan, which then became exploited on an ongoing basis - “the restoration of democracy”. Democracy Washington began to "restore" due to the fact that the authorities of Panama began to conduct a foreign policy course that is not dependent on the United States and aimed at ensuring that the Panama Canal belongs to Panama.



1991 year
- US invasion of Iraq and Kuwait. The total number of the coalition, which for the invasion was made by the States, reached almost 720 thousand people. The losses of Iraq (the largest among civilians) exceeded 100 thousands of people!



And also - the invasion of Yugoslavia, Angola, Haiti, Rwanda, Afghanistan, a new invasion of Iraq and Libya, support for international terrorism in Syria. And even this list is only a small part of those aggressions, which the representatives of the state, striving to accuse the Russian Federation of aggression through their puppets of aggression, showed against foreign countries. The USA looked in the mirror for a long time? .. Although in Washington even the mirror seems to be exceptional ...
Author:
Photos used:
www.golos-ameriki.ru, al-jazeera
27 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 8 September 2015 06: 53 New
    +15
    puppets from the “sunny” Baltic states spoke about the same thing

    Maybe it’s time to launch a “duck” in the media that Russia is preparing documents on the deprivation of the right to vote in the UN of all these ersatz countries. There will be noise. Just remember about international law. Already got the brakes from the Baltic states and freeloaders from Ukraine.
    1. ImPerts
      ImPerts 8 September 2015 07: 07 New
      +21
      Quote: rotmistr60
      Already got the brakes from the Baltic

      First, they need to cut off all the freebies that they get for the transit of Russian goods.
      And it turns out that for our money we sponsor Russophobia.
      And this is a mess.
      1. marlin1203
        marlin1203 8 September 2015 10: 20 New
        +4
        "Every pipette dreams of becoming an enema ..." They can’t figure it out at home in Ukraine, and recommendations give a "planetary scale" and the same scale of stupidity. Incidentally, there was such a prominent international figure in the USSR as Eduard Amvrosievich. "Rulil" on behalf of the great state in the international arena is famously, but as soon as he received direct control of his native Georgia, he instantly and ingloriously "was blown away." It was a pity to look at a person.
    2. Zoldat_A
      Zoldat_A 8 September 2015 10: 59 New
      +1
      Quote: rotmistr60
      Maybe it’s time to launch a “duck” in the media that Russia is preparing documents on the deprivation of the right to vote in the UN of all these ersatz countries.

      As an option - refuse to veto the UN, but - if only no one has the right to veto. In fact, what America so desires with all its independence is to cancel the results of World War II and take it by a simple majority. Shred, for example, Ukraine for another ten "votes".

      Only in this way will it come to the point that you just have to send them tries with their decisions and get out of there. Whoever wants it will be so near us. And let these suicides graze near the USA.
      1. Talgat
        Talgat 8 September 2015 18: 57 New
        +1
        That is, if "put on the shelves":

        - The UN in fact was a platform where 2 equal forces of the USSR and the USA agreed

        - Now the United States considers the world a unipolar and there is no one to negotiate with, and the UN with the right of veto of Russia and China at this particular moment prevents them

        - The idea comes not from a powder, it’s just a puppet - but from a “world government”

        “But Russia and China, uniting their closest allies around themselves and plus almost half the world, create a second pole of power, and then the UN will again need the West to come to terms with the east - but they need more time and effort.”

        -
  2. sagitch
    sagitch 8 September 2015 07: 14 New
    +11
    If Russia is deprived of the right of veto, the meaning of the existence of a Security Council at the UN is lost.
    And the USA will have free hands!
    1. Uzzy
      Uzzy 8 September 2015 08: 59 New
      +3
      Therefore, this will not happen. The world understands that after such a decision he will be on the brink of an abyss. The consequence (in its worst case) is the third world!
  3. Shiva83483
    Shiva83483 8 September 2015 07: 15 New
    +3
    Well Duc, Oashi pantners are not able to read for the most part ... and those who know how, do not know how to think, and compare what they read with the actual situation ... here they are, you’ll understand “zemakrats” ...
  4. parusnik
    parusnik 8 September 2015 07: 22 New
    +7
    Unburdened by sovereignty appease the United States by offering to "reform" the UN Security Council
    “Athanasius, and you don’t know what the UN decided about Honduras?”
    - Who is he?
    and moreover, Who is he?
  5. t1g3r
    t1g3r 8 September 2015 07: 24 New
    +4
    I think one of the two things here is either to liquidate the UN institution or to refarm it, what is the use of this organization if everyone erases with resolutions and bypasses the UN ... The UN was created under a bipolar world and now the fact is that the world has become non-polar and the result of this is the growing instability in the world. ..
    1. Rarahin
      Rarahin 8 September 2015 11: 07 New
      +1
      Putin talked about reforming the UN a year ago.
      Different parasites and doggie dogs only play into his hands. The countries of the world are beginning to realize the need for such a reform.
  6. provincial
    provincial 8 September 2015 08: 06 New
    +7
    The UN is a dark horse located in the United States. Most of the UN representatives are fed by the Americans, but I think so far it is needed. Remember the League of Nations and draw conclusions about the future of the UN.
  7. 3 Gorynych
    3 Gorynych 8 September 2015 08: 13 New
    +4
    this list is only a small part of the aggressions that representatives of the state have shown against foreign countries, seeking to accuse the Russian Federation of aggression through their puppets.
    Actually, it would be interesting to look at the reaction of healthy people - if (theoretically!) The UN Security Council chairman from the rostrum announced that everything that could be violated (from the UN Charter) had already been violated by the global hegemon - the USA ...!
  8. 1536
    1536 8 September 2015 09: 59 New
    +3
    Let's see what V.V. will say at the UN Putin is coming soon. If something goes wrong, if the Ukrainians and Canadians make an obstruction, the UN will live out its last years, turning into a club of interests, and it really awaits the fate of the League of Nations.
    A veto, what a veto? Without a veto, in general our hands will be untied. Ukrainians will be the first to know. How much can you endure rudeness on your borders and on your TVs?
  9. Volzhanin
    Volzhanin 8 September 2015 10: 15 New
    +3
    Good article! Honest +!
    At the end of the article are the dates of the Amer invasions. True, not all.
    I have a rhetorical question - why do not outflows of indignation about this happen every second from all Russian-speaking media and Internet resources? Why don’t we poke this at Anglo-Saxon daily in the eye?
    Time has passed, and analyzing those past events is much easier. Incomprehensible then movements are now clear and logical.
    Examples of numerous invasions of the Yankersons in the sovereignty of other countries and their consequences are now visible to the naked eye! There’s no need for propaganda either - throw out a bunch of facts every day and that’s it!
    After all, every inhabitant of the planet should know how many and what kind of wars provoked the scum, and why!

    And our authorities have rhetoric, like that of ridiculous schoolchildren, and even so far the director does not see ... And it’s time for the media to seize the walruses from the hands of walruses.
    1. 16112014nk
      16112014nk 8 September 2015 15: 34 New
      0
      All our media are (practically) under the control of the liberals, and the zombie man is generally a mess! The subtle soul of the liberals cannot stand anything domestic, but they simply pray for everything abroad! Therefore, how will they pour streams of a certain substance onto their deities? This is nonsense! Here it is possible to Russia, but to "exclusive" America ... "Only through our corpse" - the creed of the liberals.
      1. sharp-lad
        sharp-lad 8 September 2015 23: 32 New
        0
        Well, it's time! They themselves are asking!
    2. The comment was deleted.
  10. Belousov
    Belousov 8 September 2015 10: 19 New
    0
    The UN is still needed. If squeals are heard about the need for reform, then for now it is necessary to leave everything as it is.
  11. stas-xnumx
    stas-xnumx 8 September 2015 10: 37 New
    0
    It seems that such organizations are not needed, they do not fulfill their functions, and stench and smoke through too damn .....
  12. 3HATOK
    3HATOK 8 September 2015 10: 38 New
    0
    Decisions (resolutions) of the UN General Assembly are purely recommendatory in nature and are not binding. The issue of reform cannot pass by the Security Council, and there we “vet it”. Only decisions of the UN Security Council are binding !!!
  13. Obolensky
    Obolensky 8 September 2015 11: 17 New
    0
    Quote: sagitch
    If Russia is deprived of the right of veto, the meaning of the existence of a Security Council at the UN is lost.
    And the USA will have free hands!


    Not only in the USA. In this case, we get a global conflict, which will develop into a third world conflict. After all, not only the United States will have free hands, but also Russia and other countries too. And here again the plug. The world will be divided into two parts, one for the United States and the other for the Russia + China coalition + other countries. And the second fork - each for himself, but with such a development of events - this will be an Armageddian to the world.

    Although I really hope that there are still normal people and they will not succumb to the provocation fabricated by the United States and its puppets. I believe that it is especially necessary now to go the peaceful way, in compliance with the Charter and other regulatory documents, relying on them, and not on brute force. And the cries of some countries simply do not pay attention.
  14. Leeder
    Leeder 8 September 2015 15: 44 New
    0
    It’s hard to argue with a liar, he pretends that he doesn’t understand the clever words, and if you go down to his level, then you will not differ from him ... Look for the “Golden mean” ...
  15. Yurich
    Yurich 8 September 2015 16: 52 New
    0
    I won’t be surprised if the GDP is given the same visa as Matvienko gave
  16. Dan Slav
    Dan Slav 8 September 2015 22: 37 New
    0
    It is unlikely that the Americans or their comrades-in-arms read something here or listen to these thoughts.
    In their opinion, they are doing everything right and protecting the countries of the "civilized" world from terrorists and Russia. What does it come from Russia in the first place.
    Nobody has canceled the propaganda.
    So far, it’s all just a concussion.
  17. Vlad5307
    Vlad5307 8 September 2015 22: 59 New
    0
    Quote: marlin1203
    "Rulil" on behalf of the great state in the international arena is famously, and as soon as he received direct control of his native Georgia, he instantly and ingloriously "was blown away." It was a pity to look at a person.

    We found someone to feel sorry for, this pa ... georgian heaped such a thing together with Mecheny that the USSR collapsed thanks to him too! am
  18. Kingcobra
    Kingcobra 9 September 2015 06: 03 New
    -1
    1991 year
    - US invasion of Iraq and Kuwait. The total number of the coalition, which for the invasion was made by the States, reached almost 720 thousand people. The losses of Iraq (the largest among civilians) exceeded 100 thousands of people!

    "the most truthful article" somehow forgets that the invasion of Kuwait was from Iraq, but who needs it .... it's not good to lie so impudently. Or is it all written for shkolota with cheers chants?
  19. LeftPers
    LeftPers 9 September 2015 06: 03 New
    +2
    As for this hell, I mean Parashkin, he’s not dumb, openly pinch the pin-dosver, well, there must be at least some sense of self-esteem, just as he doesn’t tear from contemplation in the mirror of this swollen muggy face.
  20. sisa29
    sisa29 9 September 2015 08: 32 New
    0
    Good day to all. And my opinion is that the UN really lost its meaning. Yes there was a platform where two ideological opponents agreed and what now? Many conflicts in the modern history of the UN have been able to resolve. Well, we have a vetto but what does it decide. The United States least listens to decisions, so just some inconvenience.
  21. 9999888
    9999888 30 September 2015 11: 23 New
    0
    Good afternoon.

    An excellent article, and the main thing is all about the case and with the facts of their methods, actions and their true faces are visible. (You can say anything, the main thing is that these “guys” sow good or evil.)

    Anglo-Saxons where they see a profit, or who do not be robbed immediately fuss. And at the right time they created the UN (such as Casinos where they run naturally, and they will not play to the detriment of themselves and their organizers. While everyone adjusts to play according to their rules, they unilaterally rewrite the rules for themselves and to the detriment of everyone else. Presented nobly For the good of all, humanity and Peace on earth.)
    They have their own indicators around the world where you can make money with impunity.
    Examples are known to all. where revolutions, world wars, terrorists - they themselves organize, sponsor, poison nations and sell weapons to them for gold. This is their matrix, and our favorite phrase is that our business is not personal. And in the end they’ll certainly put them on interest, that's how they work (Gentlemen). They will rip you off to the penny, and you still have to say thanks to them. And even a prosperous Greece was ruined and robbed and the most interesting thing is to blame the Greeks. Usually they bring everything to Russia, which sincerely helps everyone. America as a club is working on guard of their interests, their motto is: Where there is war, devastation and poverty in the world there is America.