West & Arab proxies fail to swindle world with genocidal Libya-style regime change resolution at UNSC.
by Tony Cartalucci
February 3, 2012 – “…the UN is debating how to stop a conflict that it says has killed more than 5,400 people and is evolving into a civil war,” reports Businessweek. What Businessweek fails to mention is that the casualty reports continuously cited by both the UN and the corporate-media, come from an overtly compromised UN human rights report made up of “witness testimony” recorded not in Syria, or even in neighboring countries, but in Geneva by witnesses supplied by Syria’s foreign-funded opposition movement.
Additionally, the UN report was compiled not by objective third-parties, but by Karen Koning AbuZayd, a director of the US Washington-based corporate think-tank, Middle East Policy Council, that includes Exxon men, CIA agents, US military and government representatives, and even the president of the US-Qatar Business Council, which includes amongst its membership, AlJazeera, Chevron, Exxon, munitions manufacturer Raytheon (who supplied the opening salvos during NATO’s operations against Libya), and Boeing.
Clearly then, one can understand why Russia, China, and other nations are hesitant to sign onto what seems to be more of a plot of foreign-destabilization aimed at long planned regime change in Syria, than any legitimate concerns about the government’s alleged transgressions against an overtly armed, violent, and foreign-backed insurrection.
Businessweek notes that Russia’s hesitation may be well-founded with Libya in hindsight. Of course in Libya, a UN no-fly zone designed to allow NATO forces to “protect” Libyan civilians from government atrocities later determined to be fabricated, immediately turned into close-air supportfor foreign armed Libyan Islamic Fighting Group terrorists who committed a documented array of atrocities as they starved out and destroyed entire Libyan cities. One such city, Tawarga, saw its entire population of 30,000 purged by NATO-backed rebels, leaving what the London Telegraph described as a “ghost town.”
With this in mind, and even literally the same NATO-backed Libyan rebels now operating on Syria’s borders, it would be morally abhorrent for Russia, China, Brazil, India, South Africa, and others to allow what is clearly a repeat performance of NATO’s genocide in Libya, on behalf of Wall Street and London’s corporate-financier elite through the US, UK, EU governments, NATO and the UN.
It should be noted that America’s calls for regime change in Syria are not simply a result of spontaneous uprisings inside of Syria and the government’s response, but the culmination of decades of policy aimed toward replacing Syria’s government with a more pliant proxy regime. The latest unrest was in fact funded by the US, with open admissions coming from the US State Department itself.
Syria has been slated for regime change since as early as 1991. In 2002, then US Under Secretary of State John Bolton added Syria to the growing “Axis of Evil.” It would be later revealed that Bolton’s threats against Syria manifested themselves as covert funding and support for opposition groups inside of Syria spanning both the Bush and Obama administrations.
In an April 2011 CNN article, acting State Department spokesman Mark Toner stated, “We’re not working to undermine that [Syrian] government. What we are trying to do in Syria, through our civil society support, is to build the kind of democratic institutions, frankly, that we’re trying to do in countries around the globe. What’s different, I think, in this situation is that the Syrian government perceives this kind of assistance as a threat to its control over the Syrian people.”
Toner’s remarks came after the Washington Post released cables indicating the US has been funding Syrian opposition groups since at least 2005 and continued until today.
In an April AFP report, Michael Posner, the assistant US Secretary of State for Human Rights and Labor, stated that the “US government has budgeted $50 million in the last two years to develop new technologies to help activists protect themselves from arrest and prosecution by authoritarian governments.” The report went on to explain that the US “organized training sessions for 5,000 activists in different parts of the world. A session held in the Middle East about six weeks ago gathered activists from Tunisia, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon who returned to their countries with the aim of training their colleagues there.” Posner would add, “They went back and there’s a ripple effect.” That ripple effect of course is the “Arab Spring,” and in Syria’s case, the impetus for the current unrest threatening to unhinge the nation and invite in foreign intervention.”
As the UN debates “how to stop a conflict that it says has killed more than 5,400 people” they may wish to turn toward the regimes bent to the will of Wall Street and London and kindly ask them to stop arming and backing terrorist death squads on Syria’s borders. They may consider drafting a resolution against the use of “NGOs” like the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), the International Republican Institute (IRI), and the National Democratic Institute (NDI) to manipulate the political landscape of a foreign, sovereign nation-state.
While this is all wishful thinking, as these “international institutions” are nothing more than functionaries of Wall Street and London’s global ambitions, we must recognize that nations are increasingly reluctant to intervene in Syria, not because they are apathetic to the violence, but because it will only embolden the campaign of destabilization and terror demonstratively carried out by the West over the last year, built on similar campaigns carried out since the conclusion of World War II.