Egypt’s Morsi accused of complicity in protest deaths

Egyptian women from the Muslim Brotherhood shout slogans and hold portraits of ousted president, Mohamed Morsi, as they gather in Cairo to attend a march in his support on August 11, 2013

Source: Press TV

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/08/19/319523/morsi-charged-over-protest-deaths/

Ousted Egyptian president, Mohamed Morsi, has been accused of complicity in the deaths and torture of demonstrators outside his presidential palace in 2012, judicial sources say.

On Monday, Egypt’s prosecution extended Morsi’s detention for another 15 days which starts from next week. He already stands accused of crimes related to his 2011 escape from jail.

In December 2012, violent clashes erupted between Morsi’s supporters and opponents in the capital, Cairo, after he issued a controversial constitutional declaration in November of the same year to expand his powers.

On December 5, five people were killed in the clashes between backers and opponents of Morsi in the capital.

Earlier in July, a court in the Arab country ordered Morsi's detention over allegations of collaboration with Palestinian resistance movement, Hamas, “to undertake aggressive acts in the country, as well as attacking police facilities, officers and soldiers.”

On August 12, the Egyptian Judiciary extended the Morsi’s detention pending an inquiry into his alleged links with Hamas.

Morsi was due to be questioned on whether he collaborated with Hamas in attacks on police stations and prison breaks in early 2011, when he and some members of the Muslim Brotherhood escaped from jail during a revolution against the regime of former dictator, Hosni Mubarak.

Hamas reacted to the allegations on July 26 and condemned Morsi’s detention, saying “it is based on the premise that the Hamas movement is hostile.”

The movement’s spokesman, Sami Abu Zuhri, noted, “This is a dangerous development, which confirms that the current powers in Egypt are giving up on national causes and even using these issues to deal with other parties - first among them the Palestinian cause.”

Egypt plunged into chaos after the head of the country’s armed forces, General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, ousted Morsi on July 3, suspended the constitution and dissolved the parliament.

Read More

Stiff sentences for writers, military and political leaders in Turkish coup plot trial

 

Source: Russia Today

http://rt.com/news/turkey-ergenekon-trial-verdict-041/

A Turkish court has handed down 17 life sentences in the ‘Ergenekon’ trial of nearly 300 alleged coup plotters, including for ex-army chief Ilker Basbug and several other ex-top brass, along with leftist party leaders and a journalist.

The other sentences in the case ranged from one year and three months to 117 years behind bars, and the charges included instigating an armed uprising against Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan’s government, “aiding a terrorist organization”and conducting anti-state activities.

Retired Brig. Gen. Veli Kucuk, who was convicted of founding and heading the clandestine, secularist ultra-nationalist organization known as Ergenekon, received a double aggravated life sentence as well as an additional 99 years and one month in prison.

Prominent civilian suspects in the case, including journalist Tuncay Ozkan, Workers’ Party leader Dogu Perincek, accused of “leading a terrorist organization,”and lawyer Alparslan Aslan, identified as the assailant in the Turkish Council of State attack also received aggravated life sentences with additional years of imprisonment from the court.

Only 21 defendants were acquitted, and 16 others were released after the court took into consideration the time they spent in detention during the 6-year trial.

The court’s verdict has not yet come into power, and indictments are to be reviewed by Turkish Supreme Court. Several defendants have already announced they will appeal.

Turkish security forces were braced for large protests from the opposition at Silivri prison, west of Istanbul, where the verdicts were announced.

Despite bans for rallies being issued prior to the verdict delivery, demonstrators started arriving to the courthouse since early in the morning. Critics of Erdogan’s government, including the main opposition party, have described the trial as a “political witch hunt” aimed at cracking down on the country’s strong secularist traditions.

RT’s Irina Galushko, reporting from outside the prison complex, said local media estimated the number of security personnel at 10,000, with 13 water cannons having been spotted at the site.

Reports emerged later of tear gas, rubber bullets and water cannons being used against protesters who gathered outside the Silivri complex.

The 2,455-page indictment listed dozens of charges against the 275 defendants, including accusations of them being members of an alleged ultranationalist terrorist network Ergenekon, which, according to the court, conspired to overthrow Erdogan’s government. Prosecutors had insisted on life sentences for 64 of the defendants.

The case was opened in 2007 when 27 hand grenades were discovered in a house in Istanbul. Accusations soon began circulating that the explosives were intended to be deployed in an coup attempt. The number of suspects and allegations continued to balloon over the proceeding five years.

Army officers, politicians, scientists, journalists and lawyers would later be implicated in the scheme. All of the accused deny the charges which have been levied against them.

One of the most notable arrests was the January 2012 detention of ex-military chief Ilker Basbug. That members of the military feature so prominently in the case has sparked accusations that Prime Minister Recep Erdogan is attempting to purge the military in a bid to put it under his thumb. The Turkish military staged three coups between 1960 and 1980 and also forced a pro-Islamist government out of office in 1997. Over the past weekend four senior military officials were dismissed from their posts.

“People here say that essentially Ergenikon is just a pretense under which the Prime Minister is taking people who he personally does not like and putting them in jail so as to get rid of dissident voices,” RT's Irina Galushko reports from Istanbul.

Critics of the case include the main opposition party, who argue the charges brought against the accused are vague and the trial has dragged on for a suspiciously long period of time. They have further decried the use of anonymous witnesses as unacceptable. Critics of the proceedings have further characterized it as a politically motivated attempt on the part of Ergdogan’s Islamist government to stifle secularist activists in the country.

“This trial has been ridiculous and it ends with the verdict expected from the beginning that will be no surprise for no one. And it will be the end of trust in Erdogan’s government for a lot of people and it also is the end for the judicial system of Turkey,” Yunus Soner, from the Workers Party of Turkey, told RT.

Court hearings concerning the so-called Ergenekon trial have regularly led to violent clashes between the defendants’ supporters and police.

The trial is wrapping up in an already politically volatile climate, as Turkey has witnessed anti-government rallies on a near weekly basis, with the latest having taken place over the weekend. Monday’s verdict is expected to trigger further unrest.

Key Sentences:

Military & Police

Life sentences or more: Former armed forces chief General İlker Başbuğ, Former army commander Hurşit Tolon, Retired Col. Dursun Çiçek, Retired Col. Fuat Selvi, Hasan Ataman Yıldırım, retired generals Nusret Taşdeler, Hasan Iğsız and Şener Eruygur, Retired Brig. Gen. Veli Küçük, Capt. Muzaffer Tekin.
49 years: Lt. Col. Mustafa Dönmez.
47 years: Retired Col. Arif Doğan.
41 years: Retired Maj. Fikret Emek

Politicians:

Life: Workers’ Party leader Doğu Perinçek.
21 years: Workers' Party Press Secretary Hikmet Çiçek.
15 Years: Workers' Party Secretary-General Ferit İlsever

Journalists, Academics, Lawyers:

 
Life: Journalist Tuncay Özkan and lawyer Kemal Kerinçsiz.
34 years: Journalist Mustafa Balbay.
22 years: Professor Yalçın Küçük

Mafia Bosses:

12 years: Semih Tufan Gülaltay.
10 years: Drug lord Sami Hoştan

Read More

100 members of Egypts assembly quit

Source: Press TV

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/11/19/273188/100-members-of-egypts-assembly-quit/

Despite a road map that sets December as the deadline for the constituent assembly to be finished with Egypt's new constitution, it seems the 100 man assembly is quickly crumbling away.

Various significant withdrawals have been taking place from the assembly including Representatives of Egypt's 3 churches and AL Wafd, Egypt's oldest liberal party.

After the presser, Amr Moussa, Former Presidential candidate explained to Press TV their reasons of withdrawal from the assembly.

The withdrawals are happening after months of anger and dismay with the make up of the assembly, sidelining some political affiliations as well as minorities.

Politicians said that the draft document is catastrophic and more limiting to personal freedoms in comparison to the previous constitution written in 1971, what they believe is totally against the aspirations of the January 25 uprising

Read More

If EU were a company its chiefs and CEOs would be in jail - MEP

EU Leaders pose during a family photo after a meeting of European Union leaders in Brussels (AFP Photo / John Thys)

Source: Russia Today

http://rt.com/news/eu-budget-paul-nuttall-885/

With an EU budget that stands at 147 billion euros, a sum that looks set to increase, European MP Paul Nuttall told RT that even the EU doesn’t know where such a "crazy" sum of money is spent.

With EU members set to discuss the inflation-busting rise of 5% to the 2014-2020 budget, suggested by the European Commission, Britain's Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg has rebuked David Cameron’s plan to try and repatriate powers to the UK. He described it as “false promise wrapped in union jack” which could trigger an “outright crisis” and result in the UK leaving the union.

Clegg also argued on Thursday that achieving a cut in the seven-year EU budget to be discussed in three weeks is “completely unrealistic” and the only realistic variant is the pushing for a real-terms freeze.

Cameron also wants to push for a freeze, but that freeze is in fact an increase, argues Paul Nuttall, a Member of the European Parliament from the UK Independence Party, due to the inflation.

RT:Is Nick Clegg right? Is the UK moving away from Europe?

Paul Nuttall: The UK is certainly moving away …Well, the people are moving away from Europe, shall we say. If we look at recent opinion polls 80 per cent of people want the referendum, so around 60 per cent of people actually want to leave the European Union altogether. So the people are certainly moving away. The political class that’s another debate, I mean, I think what Nick Clegg said is quite right actually. We can’t repatriate powers unless we have an iron fist behind us. And the iron fist has to be a referendum on our membership of the EU and then we can invoke something called Article 50 of the Lisbon treaty, which means that we can then start negotiation about we can repatriate back to this country.

RT:How welcome is David Cameron going to be in Brussels later this month – what do you expect him to say?

PN: I think David Cameron has already shown his hands. I mean if I was going out there wanting a bargain what I would say that I want a clear reduction – a cut – in the EU budget. What he is saying is that he wants a freeze, which is in fact really a rise what would go in inflation. And I think he has shown his hands and what will happen is that he will talk hard and at the end he will come back and we will lose again and the British people will only pay more and more money to Brussels.

RT:As a Euro MP, how much money does the EU really need to go about its business?

PN: The budget last year was 129 billion pounds [sic], which is a crazy amount of money. Every single year the budget goes up and member states, including Greece and Portugal and Irelands that are in serious trouble will be asked to put their hands in pockets and give more to Brussels. It is wrong.

RT:Large parts of the EU budget have been failing audits for years now. Where does all the money go?

PN: That’s a good question. I don’t know. It seems that the European Union itself doesn’t know. Look, if the European Union was a company then its directors and chief executives would all be in jail. But it is not. It is corrupt and it is another reason why British people want that referendum and want to leave.

RT:Weaker eurozone states are struggling to stay afloat – Spain's verging on a bailout. But the UK's not in the currency union. However it's still paying into the troubled region's coffers. How much is the currency bloc relying on the wider EU states?

PN: The currency block certainly relies presumably on Britain, actually, out of the states which aren’t in the currency [block]. And we pay somewhere 15 million pounds a day just to be members of this club and this doesn’t take into account the mega amounts of money – tens of billions it costs us to comply with EU directives and regulations. It burdens on the British people. It is something we are not happy about. We want a referendum because let’s not forget the last time we voted on our membership this organization was in 1975. We deserve a referendum and we want a say on this issue.

 

Read More

Opposition arrests in Kuwait Political standoff deepens

 

Kuwaiti MP Msallam al-Barrak (C) speaks to the press during a protest outside the national assembly in Kuwait City. (AFP Photo / Yasser Al-Zayyat)

Source: Russia Today

http://rt.com/news/political-emir-opposition-country-792/

Three former opposition Kuwaiti MPs were ordered to be detained for three days on Friday. They were accused of politically undermining the emir by criticizing him publicly at an opposition rally, an illegal act in the US-backed oil nation.

­The three, Falah al-Sawwagh, Bader al-Dahum and Khaled al-Tahus, criticized Emir Sheik Sabah Al Ahmad Al Sabah at an opposition rally on October 10, protesting alleged government plans to manipulate election results.

“Two former [Islamist] MPs, Falah al-Sawwagh and Bader al-Dahum, have just been arrested by the state security police," former deputy Mussallam al-Barrak, told AFP reporters.

The three MPs were questioned for nine hours by authorities before finally being taken into custody on Friday.

More arrests are expected in the wake of repeated demonstrations, some of which have turned violent. Four were wounded and six arrested as police used batons to disperse some 5,000 protestors on Tuesday, October 16, angry over the political deadlock that has gripped the country for months.

Sheik Sabah dissolved the Kuwaiti parliament on October 7 to prevent opposition Islamist groups from gaining more power in the government. A parliamentary election in February gave Islamists control of the 50-seat parliament. The dissolution started a 60-day deadline to hold new elections.

Al-Barrak also broke the law by directly addressing the emir at the October 16 protest, saying, "We won't let you rule this country on your own."

“We are not scared of your new batons nor the jails you have built … violence will only lead to counter-violence…Kuwaiti people will not allow the country to be governed through an autocratic rule," he told the crowd.

It is illegal under Kuwait’s constitution to criticize the emir, who by law must be from the Al-Sabah family, a clan that has been in power for over 250 years.

Kuwait is a member of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) nation and its plentiful oil-based economy make it the fifth-richest nation in the world. It is also a major non-NATO US ally, and the main hub for all US military operations in the area.

The movement for government reforms have placed united several groups with greatly differing beliefs on how the country should proceed. There is however, a sense of caution expressed by liberals at the agenda of the Islamists.

Bassam Al-Asoussi, a member of the liberal Democratic Forum political bloc, said “Yes, the government has many shortcomings indeed, but [the opposition leaders] aren't the people who will save the country," he said, AP reports. "They are regressive, not progressive.”

The emir has until December to hold new elections in the hopes that he can counter the upswing in reform sentiments.

Read More

Bahrain court upholds jail sentences for 9 doctors

 

Bahraini medics are seen helping a wounded protester at Salmaniya hospital in the capital Manama. (File photo)

Source: Press TV

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/10/01/264392/bahrain-upholds-verdicts-for-9-doctors/

A Bahraini court has upheld the prison sentences handed down to nine doctors for treating protesters during anti-regime demonstrations.

Bahrain's Court of Cassation, the country’s highest court, dismissed on Monday an appeal by the medics against their controversial verdicts that have drawn international condemnation to the US-allied Persian Gulf state.

General Abdul-Rahman al-Sayed said that the court confirmed the previous sentences given to the doctors.

In June, the medics, who were working at the Salmaniya hospital in the capital Manama, were given jail terms ranging from one month to five years.

International rights groups have criticized the rulings, with Amnesty International calling it a "dark day for justice."

The Bahraini revolution began in mid-February 2011, when the people, inspired by the popular revolutions that toppled the dictators of Tunisia and Egypt, started holding massive demonstrations.

Dozens of people have been killed in the crackdown, and the security forces have arrested hundreds, including doctors and nurses accused of treating injured revolutionaries.

Read More

America’s Takeover of the United Nations

By: Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

Source: Global Research

http://www.globalresearch.ca/americas-takeover-of-the-united-nations/

The calls at the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) summit in Tehran for reforming the United Nations and democratizing the Security Council were not exactly new. These calls for UN reform were embodied by the conference’s dictum of “lasting peace through joint global governance.” These demands have been made over and over again by various countries and groups throughout the years.

Nor was everyone present at the NAM gala in Tehran a friend of Iran or open to the Iranian proposals for reforming the United Nations. The visibly shaken Jeffrey Feltman, who was uncomfortably sitting with Iranian officials in Tehran alongside his new boss Ban Ki-moon, can testify to all this. Feltman is a clear symbol of how contaminated the United Nations has become by the imperialist interests of Washington.

The manipulation of the United Nations for imperialist interests, however, goes back a long way. From its inception, the United Nations was meant to facilitate the global influence of the US after the Second World War. The idea of the United Nations, which gets its name from the military coalition (called the United Nations) of the Allied countries that was formed against Germany and the Axis countries, was based on an agreement drafted by the US and the UK during the Second World War. This agreement, the Atlantic Charter, was written out while the US was officially neutral, but secretly supported the British war effort against Germany and its Axis allies by sending supplies to Britain through Canada. The US would later use the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in Hawaii as a justification for entering the war and getting the other Allies to accept the Anglo-American Atlantic Charter during the war and then at the San Francisco Conference in 1945.

The United Nations Security Council

The membership of the UN grew from fifty-one to a hundred and fifty-nine members between 1945 and 1985, with most of the new member countries being former colonies. The UN was used as a tool to control most these former Western European and American colonies of the Third World. At first the US and its post-war allies maintained their domination over the newly formed UN and the former colonies through their numbers and then through a Western Bloc monopoly over the structures of the United Nations. Hereto this monopoly includes control over the agencies and permanent veto-wielding chairs of the fifteen-member Security Council of the United Nations.

The Security Council above all has been used by the US as a means of protecting its interests. The purpose of the Security Council veto is to reject any international resolutions and consensuses against the national interests (or more precisely the interests of the ruling elites) of the US and the other major post-World War II powers. Except for the rival Soviet Union, the US originally controlled or heavily influenced the other three permanent veto-wielding members of the UN Security Council. Britain and the US were essentially confederated and had integrated in 1941 with one another through the Anglo-American Atlantic Charter. France, as a declining power like the UK, was heavily dependent on the United States. The Chinese seat was also originally held by the Kuomintang (Chinese Nationalist Party) which was a US client.

US General Albert C. Wedemeyer was the chief of staff to Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, the leader of Kuomintang-ruled China before Kai-shek fled to Taiwan after the Communist Party of China took over the mainland. The US even envisioned a role for the Kuomintang in governing the former French colonies of Indo-China. Only in 1971 would Washington lose control over the Chinese seat at the UN Security Council when the People’s Republic of China was recognized as the legitimate representative of the Chinese people by the majority of the UN General Assembly and therefore handed over Taiwan’s permanent seat at the UN Security Council.

While the Soviet Union originally made the most vetoes at the UN Security Council, the situation began to change towards the second half of the Cold War and in the post-Cold War era when the US began to take the lead in making vetoes. Ironically, the US and its allies are saying that the international system is failing now due to the double vetoes of China and Russia preventing foreign intervention in Syria. No similar complaints have been made about the numerous vetoes cast by Washington in support of Israel.

Eventually the UN Security Council went beyond the function of protecting US interests after the collapse of the Soviet Union. It became a tool for projecting US interests globally as Washington began to push for unipolar post-Cold War hegemony. The Chinese and Russian double vetoes signal an end to both Pax Americana and the use of the UN Security Council to project US power.

The Secretariat of the United Nations

Besides the United Nations Security Council, the Secretariat of the United Nations has been predominately under the control of the US and its allies. At first this took place because the US and the Western Bloc had numerical superiority at the United Nations. Thus, the first two secretaries-general of the UN were from the Western European kingdoms of Norway, and Sweden. Prior to this Baron Hubert Gladwyn from the United Kingdom was the acting secretary-general of the UN. Swedish diplomat Dag Hammarskjold would visibly serve US and Western Bloc interests to the point that the Soviets and others would demand he be removed from the UN Secretariat.

As the Western Bloc began to lose its numerical advantage, control over the Secretariat would be maintained through the Security Council. The UN Security Council does this by filtering all the candidates for the top UN post in the Secretariat. Secretaries-general of the UN are appointed by the UN General Assembly based on the recommendation of the UN Security Council. Thus, the US and other permanent members of the Security Council have vetoes that can eliminate any candidates that would be hostile to their interests.

Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev’s condemnations about the Secretariat of the United Nations, which helped remove nationalist leaders from power across Africa and the Third World, have a resonating truth to them. After a long streak of secretaries-general that were predominately favorable to the Western Bloc, the Non-Aligned Movement would push a NAM candidate into the UN Secretariat. The NAM’s position is the basis for the elevation of Egyptian diplomat Boutros Boutros-Ghali’s to the post of UN secretary-general in 1992.

Bourtos-Ghali was the closest thing to the last independent secretary-general of the United Nations. The world, however, rapidly changed since the end of the Cold War and Washington expected a far greater degree of subservience from the Secretariat of the UN. After the Cold War UN secretaries-general were expected to act as loyal US stewards. This would start with the Ghanaian UN career bureaucrat Kofi Annan.

Kofi Annan: An Enabler of “Responsibility to Protect”

To his credit Annan is a shrewd diplomatic figure that knows how to sit on the fence, but he has cunningly served the US while appearing circumvent. Aside from the public reports about the involvement of Annan and his son Kojo in the UN’s Iraq oil-for-food scandal, the former secretary-general has a history of legitimizing US interventionism and the occupation of other UN members. Career US diplomat Richard Holbrooke, who was one of the central figures involved in the balkanization of Yugoslavia, praised Annan as one of the most supportive figures for Washington’s foreign policy in the Balkans. This is why Boutros Boutros-Ghali was pushed aside from the secretary-generalship of the UN by Washington’s veto to make way for Annan.

Annan did Washington’s bidding in the French-speaking Caribbean island-republic of Haiti. He followed the script of George W. Bush Jr. and the neo-cons to a tee in Haiti and legitimized the US-led coup involving Canada and France that removed Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide. He would criminally give Washington the cover of the United Nations in the occupation of Haiti.

Kofi Annan was also instrumental in helping to put together the “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) doctrine with Canadian diplomats to justify foreign military intervention. Two years after the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq he would give his rubber stamp to R2P in 2005, which would merely become a reinvented term replacing NATO’s “humanitarian intervention.” Before Annan was appointed as the joint peace envoy of the Arab League and United Nations to resolve the Syria crisis he participated as a panelist in a discussion about R2P and interventionism on November 4, 2011. The event is important, because it gives an idea of where Annan stands.

The panel (Responsibility to Protect – 10 Years On: Reflections on its Past, Present and Future) was undeniably supportive of R2P and NATO. Annan’s comments were no exception. The former secretary-general and soon-to-be peace envoy told the audience that he held a sympathetic position towards military intervention by the US and NATO. He specifically told the audience that he supported NATO’s military intervention in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and he tacitly gave his support to a similar scenario in Syria. Two of the figures involved in the event, Allan Rock (president of the University of Ottawa and former Canadian ambassador to the UN) and Lloyd Axworthy (president of the University of Winnipeg and the former Canadian foreign minister), co-authored an article about R2P praising the war in Libya as a victory for R2P a week earlier in preparation for Annan’s arrival to Ottawa.

Ban Ki-moon: An Executioner of “Responsibility to Protect”

The South Korean diplomat Ban Ki-moon is even more of an Atlanticist steward than Annan. His record has been very abysmal. One of the first things he did in 2007 was to join the US in criticizing the nations of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva for “singling out Israel” for its human rights violations.

In 2008, Ban Ki-moon would secretly negotiate and sign a cooperation agreement with NATO. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov would express shock and the Kremlin would be angered by Ban Ki-moon’s conniving. R2P would be central to the cooperation agreement between NATO and the UN Secretariat. NATO’s “humanitarian intervention” was shifted to a worldwide level through the cover of potential military intervention under the banner of the UN.

Moreover, this tool of intervention could only be harnessed and authorized by the undemocratic UN Security Council and its veto-wielding members. In parallel the under secretary-general posts for humanitarian affairs and emergency relief were handed over to British career diplomats, one of which is Valerie Amos who has sinisterly tried to bypass the Syrian government in establishing ties with Syrian non-governmental organizations (NGOs).

In 2011, Ban Ki-moon took steps to personally lobby and pressure all the countries of the Mediterranean Sea to support Israel and prevent any humanitarian aid from reaching the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip by ship. Ban Ki-moon ignored Tel Aviv’s illegal military blockade of Gaza and its violation of international law. Instead in Orwellian terms he demanded for the enforcement of the illegal Israeli blockade, which he called the “legal channels of the Israeli government pertaining to the flow of goods and aid” to Gazans. In 2012, Ban Ki-moon also refused to meet the representatives of the families of Palestinian victims and captives inside Israel while he was visiting Gaza. Inversely, Ban Ki-moon made personal efforts to secure the release of the captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. As a result of Ban Ki-moon’s bias many Palestinians hurled shoes and stones at his UN convoy as it entered the Gaza Strip.

Every nuance in Ban Ki-moon’s voice and every line in his statements serve Washington’s interests. Before the secretary-general even left to Tehran for the NAM summit, his spokesman Farhan Haq told the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) that his boss was going to Tehran as part of his responsibilities and that the visit “does not confer legitimacy” on his Iranian hosts. Giving political evaluations of this type about the legitimacy of any government is a breach of the mandate of a UN secretary-general, who is supposed to be a neutral figure and moderator representing all the members of the UN. Moreover, Ban Ki-moon would go out of his way to defend Israel at the NAM summit. His speech would also be coordinated with the politicized report of the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which was meant to tarnish Tehran’s image during the NAM summit.

In regards to both Libya and Syria, Ban Ki-moon has followed the US and NATO script for R2P and regime change. When a major propaganda effort was launched against Syria following the Houla Massacre, Ban Ki-moon and other UN officials quickly followed the US line and condemned Damascus at a special session of the UN General Assembly in New York City. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s June 8 condemnation was made even though it was widely documented that anti-government forces were responsible for the murders in Houla.

The top UN official would say that every passing day was bringing “new additions to the grim catalogue of atrocities: assaults against civilians, brutal human rights violations, mass arrests, torture, execution-style killings of whole families” in Syria. He would conclude that the Syrian government had “lost all legitimacy” and had to step aside. Again this was another violation of the neutral position that the secretary-general of the UN is mandated to espouse.

Jeffrey Feltman: The Real Secretary-General of the United Nations?

Ban Ki-moon’s appointment of the hollow and comical US career diplomat Jeffrey Feltman as the UN under secretary-general for political affairs is just one of his latest moves that serve US interests. Feltman, a shameless careerist who has done whatever he could to promote himself, has been exclusively in the service of justifying the unjustifiable and pretending to be an expert on the Middle East. As a top US diplomat in the Middle East, unlike his counterparts from other countries he failed to master any of the local languages in the region. Moreover, he was complicit in the 2006 Israeli war on Lebanon and a US attaché to two foreign occupations.

Like Robert Gates, Feltman is a carryover to the Obama Administration from the Bush Jr. Administration. He was a special assistant to American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) heavyweight Martin Indyk in Israel and a representative in the US Consulate General in Jerusalem. Everything he knows about the Middle East is shaped and spoon-fed to him by the biased views of AIPAC. He was the representative of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Anglo-American occupied Iraq and later a central force for promoting sectarian hate and division in Lebanon as the US ambassador in Beirut before he was promoted to the job of US assistant-secretary of state responsible for the Middle East. The UN’s Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL), a political circus that Washington has tried to use to indict and isolate first Syria and then later Hezbollah, is widely known to be his pet project.

Before Feltman even arrived in Tehran, one of the first things he did was to declare that Iran was sending weapons to Syria. This was immediately picked up by his friends (contacts) in the Israeli media who have favored him over the years as one of Israel’s most ardent supporters. Among others, the Israeli media also slyly tried to mention Feltman’s name as less as possible and instead attribute his statement to the entire United Nations as a means of hiding the bias source of the statements and giving his account further weight.

Feltman’s appointment by Ban Ki-moon shows just how much control Washington has over the UN Secretariat. His appointment as the individual responsible for “political affairs” says a lot about the political perspective that the UN Secretariat either has or will adopt. If Hillary Clinton had ordered US officials to spy on Ban Ki-moon as was reported in 2010, there should also be no doubt that Jeffery Feltman was monitoring Ban Ki-moon in Tehran for the US Department of State and that Feltman will brief Washington about the NAM summit. In essence Feltman was the informal representative of the US at the NAM summit. It is also a very legitimate question to ask whether Feltman or Ban Ki-moon is in charge of the UN Secretariat.

Iran had announced that it intended to propose a peace plan, with the support of Russia and China, to end the Syrian crisis on the sidelines of the NAM conference. America’s emissaries were at the summit too. The invitation of the Turks to the NAM summit and the presence of Feltman and the officials of the Arab countries that are part of the siege against Damascus, such as Qatar’s Emir Hamad bin Khalifa Al-Thani, are all very likely to have ties to negotiations over Syria. Same goes for the presence of Egypt’s Morsi. The US and its clients have realized that their plans in Syria have not gone through and this could secretly have brought them to the table in Tehran or elsewhere in the future.

A New Alternative to the UN is Needed

The “real” international community slapped the Obama Administration in the face from Tehran. The US and all the UN structures and agencies, including the IAEA, under Washington’s control were retorted when all of the NAM’s one hundred and twenty members unanimously supported the Iranian nuclear energy program and declared their opposition to the unilateral sanctions against Iran in their final communiqué. There is still, however, more that is needed. As long as the United Nations is not reformed these very same countries will be walking in the shadows of the US and its allies from NATOistan in the hallways of the United Nations.

The problems go beyond the Security Council. The Secretariat is also a part of the problem. Washington will turn to the UN Secretariat more and more as the Russians and Chinese begin to challenge the US and its allies at the Security Council.

The UN has become even more contaminated by Atlanticist projects to use it to legitimize and launch imperialist military campaigns to enforce a declining system of privilege and unjust global governance that Washington heads. The motivations behind the drafting and institutionalizing of R2P at the UN are aimed at helping to prevent this decline. This is why that either reform or an alternative to the United Nations is needed now more than ever.

 

Read More