Home > Uncategorized > Syria And America’s New World Order

Syria And America’s New World Order

Voice of Russia
August 3, 2012

America’s new world order
Yekaterina Kudashkina

AUDIO: Download

====

I think that after the crushing of the Soviet Union, the US forgot about international law, about Security Council resolutions, about all legitimacy regarding their actions. We watched these things in Kosovo, we watched these things in Bosnia, in Iraq, in Afghanistan and in many other places in the world. I think that now the US demonstrates a unipolar approach to the solution of all hot issues in the world. I think it is a continuation of an American geopolitical game aiming at imposing on the world their will as the last judge for any problems and questions existing in our globe.

Americans look at the Russian and the Chinese position as a confrontation. So, it is confronting not only the Syrian regime, it is confronting international law, it is imposing on Russia and China new rules of the world order, that they prefer to be dominating in the 21st century in relation with the Russian Federation, with the Chinese Republic, with all the world. I think that we are witnessing new efforts of the US administration to impose on the world the new order of a power that can dominate and can give orders to other states.

====

Vyacheslav Matuzov, the Director of the Friendship and Business Cooperation Society with Arab countries, talks about American geopolitical plans in the Middle East.

These leaks are not unexpected acts from the American administration, because if we take into consideration that the approach to the Syrian crisis for one year and more was according to one conclusion – that behind all the Arab Spring are American geopolitical plans to overthrow unpleasant regimes in the Middle East. I think that it is unexpected only for those who were considering the Middle East revolutions as the internal business of the Arab world.

But in my opinion the United States of America helped the situation in the Arab world during one year and this is why we consider that all that is going on is based on American policy. I think that it is not an unexpected step. America helped opposition leaders with weapons, with instructions, with financing, with political and informational support. They faced the Russian position that suggested a political solution, an international, inter-Syrian dialog, but it was absolutely unclear whether this Russian suggestion for the American side is acceptable.

Now these leaks, that were not accidental, opened the door for an understanding that push puts an end to Kofi Annan’s mission. These Russian efforts to preserve the situation from a military confrontation, to put it into a framework of a political solution, cannot be realized with American rejection.

America rejects Russian efforts for a peaceful solution and prefers military actions. I think that the response to this American approach will be one of increasing military tension in Syria. And I think that Russia should put an end to its efforts to influence Syrian authorities to calm down military confrontation.

Military confrontation is not the initiative of the Syrian government; military confrontation on an increasing basis is a subject of American policy in the Middle East. So, it is not for the Russians, for the Americans to decide the behavior of the Syrian authorities. The Syrian authorities I’m sure will defend themselves and they have all opportunities to withstand this informational, political and now open military pressure on them.

But Mr. Matuzov, how legal could this move be from the point of view of international legislation, because as far as we understand the UN Security Council has never approved any assistance either to the opposition or to government forces?

I think that after the crushing of the Soviet Union, the US forgot about international law, about Security Council resolutions, about all legitimacy regarding their actions. We watched these things in Kosovo, we watched these things in Bosnia, in Iraq, in Afghanistan and in many other places in the world. I think that now the US demonstrates a unipolar approach to the solution of all hot issues in the world. I think it is a continuation of an American geopolitical game aiming at imposing on the world their will as the last judge for any problems and questions existing in our globe.

Mr. Matuzov, this leak is a kind of unprecedented openness on the part of the US authorities which definitely have confronted staunch opposition from Russia and China in the matter of Syria. You have extensive contacts in the Arab world. So, what could this open position of the US, what implications could it have for the stance of the US in the Middle East?

Americans look at the Russian and the Chinese position as a confrontation. So, it is confronting not only the Syrian regime, it is confronting international law, it is imposing on Russia and China new rules of the world order, that they prefer to be dominating in the 21st century in relation with the Russian Federation, with the Chinese Republic, with all the world. I think that we are witnessing new efforts of the US administration to impose on the world the new order of a power that can dominate and can give orders to other states.

Could it backfire on the US?

I don’t think it will backfire on the US because the US is a great power. It is certainly. And I think that it is absolutely clear that resistance to this policy will continue. And I’m sure that the Russian position is absolutely clearly laid down by our Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov who explained that events surrounding Syria are not events that concern only local or regional issues, as Mr. Lavrov said – it is a regulation of the new international law that will be dominating in the 21st century. I absolutely agree with Mr. Lavrov.

About these ads
Categories: Uncategorized
  1. Kathleen
    August 3, 2012 at 10:59 pm

    America rejects Russian efforts for a peaceful solution and prefers military actions
    … military confrontation on an increasing basis is a subject of American policy in the Middle East
    …the US forgot about international law, about Security Council resolutions, about all legitimacy regarding their actions…now the US demonstrates a unipolar approach.

    All true enough. And the calling out of “America” and “the US” does not mince words. “NATO” and “the west” are just semantic avoidance, they are a EUPHEMISM and a FIG LEAF that cloud the place for blame. We have to face that the enemy is us.

    It should also be said that these decisions have been hijacked, commandeered, and do NOT represent ALL of America. Here is an example of one American that is not in agreement with these policies:
    (by Stephen Lendman)

    Sanctions and International Law

    The General Assembly’s 1974 Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States says no nation may use or encourage use of economic, political or other measures to coerce another country to subordinate its sovereign rights in any way.

    Under Part IV, Section 1, Chapter III, Article 54 of the Protocol 1 Additional to the Geneva Conventions (1977):

    (1) Starving civilians during war is prohibited.

    (2) Attacking, destroying, removing, or compromising indispensable items is prohibited. They include foodstuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies, irrigation works, and other essential products, services, and facilities relating to them.
    And more… http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2012/08/illegitimate-sanctions-on-iran.html

    Blockades are acts of war. International and US law call them: surrounding a nation or objective with hostile forces; measures to isolate an enemy; encirclement and besieging;

    preventing the passage in or out of supplies, military forces or aid in time of or as an act of war; and

    an act of naval warfare to block access to an enemy’s coastline and deny entry to all vessels and aircraft.

    The 1856 Declaration of Paris and 1909 Declaration of London called blockades acts of war. America approved them. Under the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, they’re binding US law.
    More… http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2012/08/washingtons-total-war-on-syria.html

    Things a good UN envoy should know. Just a response from within America: It is absolutely clear that resistance to this policy will continue.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 495 other followers

%d bloggers like this: