The State of Libya v. the Syrian Arab Republic: where is the moral high ground?

 En conflictos supranacionales, derechos humanos

The objective of this simple essay is to evaluate the skulls and bones, the international law and the moral high ground of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya’s United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization so-called Operation Unified Protector v. UNSCR-total-absence strategy in the Syrian Arab Republic.

Being this text more strategical than academic, there might be some irrelevant mistakes in the details, but these will not impact the strategical point of view, and we are not quoting specifics, but alluding facts.

In that way, we need to begin by clearly expressing that it is false that the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya’s United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 was an operation of the West to preserve western interests, as has been said, specially by the Russian Federation and its actual President and head of state, Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin; which, as we will see, impacted many posterior events, like the total absence of the international community and the sustainment of the regime in the Syrian Arab Republic.

To start, we must mention that the League of Arab States, that comprises the People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria, the Kingdom of Bahrain, the Union of the Comoros, the Republic of Djibouti, the Arab Republic of Egypt, the Republic of Iraq, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, the State of Kuwait, the Lebanese Republic, the Islamic Republic of Mauritania, the Kingdom of Morocco, the Sultanate of Oman, the Palestinian authorities, the State of Qatar, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Federal Republic of Somalia, the Republic of the Sudan, the Syrian Arab Republic, the Republic of Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates and the Republic of Yemen, with observer states the Federative Republic of Brazil, the State of Eritrea, the Republic of India, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and the Republic of Armenia; this League, called on the United Nations Security Council to impose a no-fly zone over the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in a bid to protect civilians from air attacks and to establish safe areas in places exposed to shelling as a precautionary measure to allow the protection of the Libyan people and foreign nationals residing in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, all this by also condemning the serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law that were committed in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.

Also, the African Union condemned the serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law that were committed in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. This Union is comprised by the People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria, the Republic of Angola, the Republic of Benin, the Republic of Botswana, the Burkina Faso, the Republic of Burundi, the  Republic of Cabo Verde, the Republic of Cameroon, the Central African Republic, the Republic of Chad, the Union of the Comoros, the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Republic of Djibouti, the Arab Republic of Egypt, the Republic of Equatorial Guinea, the State of Eritrea, the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, the Gabonese Republic, the Republic of the Gambia, the Republic of Ghana, the Republic of Guinea, the Republic of Guinea-Bissau, the Republic of Kenya, the Kingdom of Lesotho, the Republic of Liberia, the Republic of Madagascar, the Republic of Malawi, the Republic of Mali, the Islamic Republic of Mauritania, the Republic of Mauritius, the Kingdom of Morocco, the Republic of Mozambique, the Republic of Namibia, the Republic of the Niger, the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the Republic of the Congo, the Republic of Rwanda, the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, the Democratic Republic of São Tomé and Príncipe, the Republic of Senegal, the Republic of Seychelles, the Republic of Sierra Leone, the Federal Republic of Somalia, the Republic of South Africa, the Republic of South Sudan, the Republic of the Sudan, the Kingdom of Eswatini, the United Republic of Tanzania, the Togolese Republic, the Republic of Tunisia, the Republic of Uganda, the Republic of Zambia and the Republic of Zimbabwe.

So, although some members may have had diverse opinions, like for instance the President of the Republic of Zimbabwe, Robert Gabriel Mugabe (with a remarkable and notorious record in human rights and liberties empowerment and protection and a democratic background of thirty-seven years of government) who referred to the western nations as “vampires”; the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Sayyid Ali Hosseini Khamenei, who said he supported the rebels but not western intervention; the former President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías, who called Muammar Mohammed Abu Minyar Gaddafi a “martyr”, and its actual President, Nicolás Maduro Moros (who governs a stable, free and prosperous democracy and will be doing it for several years ahead); the former President of the Republic of Cuba, Raúl Modesto Castro Ruz; the President of the Republic of Nicaragua, José Daniel Ortega Saavedra (who has just perpetrated repression and crimes against his own people and is not willing to leave power); the former Supreme Leader of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Kim Jong-il (who was accused of many hypothetical things, but not even humanitarian authorities get to see it, because nobody can access his country); all these as echoes of the President of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, point of view; albeit of these beautiful, prominent and sincere dissident opinions, it is clear that there was a vast majority of states of the League of Arab States and of the African Union who made possible those public, institutional and objective positions.

In such matter, to start: is valid to conclude and remark it was not an operation (“a crusade”) of the West to preserve western interests. Under a biased prism of an alien under the surface strategy, these countries might be the West, but it has not been expressed in that way by the President of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin; he has not tell us that in his mental universe and in his idea of reality is like that. Or otherwise, he has not provided the public opinion, the United Nations and those accused countries with evidence that western countries violated so many sovereignties, legal systems and Constitutions to impose the fantastic prism that inhabits his mind. Furthermore, he has not tell us either if he considers these counties as inexistent or irrelevant.

Arising impossible to elude or evade the fact that there is a dandy and suspicious use of fallacies, and clear, even perhaps to apprentices, severe understanding mistakes, not to mention the intervention in other countries’ elections, with hackers being persecuted and spokespersons and all that; yet resulting as well relevant not to ignore and recognize these ideas were so effectively communicated, that people like some of the above mentioned, have been considered as valid, democratic and accredited voices.

Plus, the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 was approved by Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of Colombia, the French Republic, the Gabonese Republic, the Lebanese Republic, the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the Portuguese Republic, the Republic of South Africa, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America, with the abstentions of the Federative Republic of Brazil, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of India, and also, being possible to be vetoed, and therefore not being approved, by permanent members like the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation itself.

Now that it is evident that the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 was not a western instrument, we might ask ourselves: what does the resolution state?

To start that recalling and deploring the failure of the Libyan authorities to comply with resolution 1970 (2011) of the Security Council, expressing grave concern at the deteriorating situation, the escalation of violence, and the heavy civilian casualties, reiterating the responsibility of the Libyan authorities to protect the Libyan population and reaffirming that parties to armed conflicts bear the primary responsibility to take all feasible steps to ensure the protection of civilians (alas, not attack, bomb or repress them or their legitimate manifestation rights, as happened, for instance, with the legitimately preoccupied Nicolás Maduro Moros, José Daniel Ortega Saavedra and Robert Gabriel Mugabe).

Thence, the resolution condemned the gross and systematic violation of human rights, including arbitrary detentions, enforced disappearances, torture and summary executions of civilians, as well as acts of violence and intimidation committed by the Libyan authorities against journalists, media professionals and associated personnel, and not compiling with their obligations under international humanitarian law (just like is happening in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela where their misconception of sovereignty is more important than the right of the people to even eat and be assisted in their most basic needs), as outlined in resolution 1738 (2006) of the Security Council. Resulting important to point here, that even the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela’s strong allies, the Russian Federation and its President, Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, have abandoned them, as once happened with the Republic of Cuba.

Highlighting the indisputably fact that the resolution, above all, considered the widespread and systematic attacks in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya against the civilian population which may amount to crimes against humanity, what even impacted the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, involving charges for these crimes against Muammar Mohammed Abu Minyar Gaddafi and some other Libyan Arab Jamahiriya’s individuals.

Consequentially, it recalled paragraph 26 of resolution 1970 (2011) in which the Council expressed its readiness to consider taking additional appropriate measures, as necessary, to facilitate and support the return of humanitarian agencies and make available humanitarian and related assistance in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, and expressed its determination to ensure the protection of civilians and civilian populated areas and the rapid and unimpeded passage of humanitarian assistance and the safety of humanitarian personnel, recalling, therefore, the condemnation by the League of Arab States, the African Union, and the Secretary General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, of the serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law that took place in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.

There were also various and diverse calls and promises and compromises for cease-fires, but “playing chess targeting the civilian population, including aerial and naval attacks”, was apparently funnier for Muammar Mohammed Abu Minyar Gaddafi than actually quit attacking them, this spirit imbued, as well, all his subordinates, who publicly challenged the United Nations Security Council and the international community’s determination, demeriting the legitimate aspirations of the Libyan people for a new beginning and for their freedom from oppression.

Otherwise: if Muammar Mohammed Abu Minyar Gaddafi was not the formal leader of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, if he was complying with international law, why did not he just explain the United Nations Security Council and the International Criminal Court the widespread and systematic attacks in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya against the civilian population? Why he hired and paid and brought mercenaries from all over the region if he was not the responsible and a war and humanitarian criminal? Why did he use the state institutions to protect himself while he played a chess game with the aliens against the Libyan people?

Hence, it was proper to the circumstances of the case that the situation in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya was referred to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, stressing that those responsible for or complicit in attacks targeting the civilian population, including aerial and naval attacks, must be held to account, additionally deploring the continuing use of mercenaries by the Libyan authorities, establishing that a ban on all flights in the airspace of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya constituted an important element for the protection of civilians, as well as the safety of the delivery of humanitarian assistance and a decisive step for the cessation of hostilities in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, also expressing concerns for the safety of foreign nationals and their rights.

Thus, it was determined that the situation in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya constituted a threat to international peace and security.

Accordingly, acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, it was necessary, amongst other measures contemplated in article 41 of the Charter, in itself comprised in the resolution, like for instance the enforcement of the arms embargo, the establishment of the no-fly zone, the ban on flights, the asset freeze and the designations of particular individuals; among those measures, it was likewise necessary, as stated in article 42 of the Charter, to also take action at least by air and sea to maintain or restore international peace and security, including demonstrations, blockade, and other operations at least by air and sea, of Members of the United Nations, id est, in accordance with article 43 of the Charter, being this only viable to be empowered by Members of the United Nations through the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

All this recalling paragraph 26 of resolution 1970 (2011) in which the Council expressed its readiness to consider taking additional appropriate measures, as necessary, to facilitate and support the return of humanitarian agencies and make available humanitarian and related assistance in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.

It is important to mention here that it was impossible to accomplish the demands for the immediate establishment of a cease-fire and a complete end to violence and all attacks against, and abuses of, civilians, perpetrated by the regime, contained in the resolution; but specially to stablish the no-fly zone in order to help protect civilians, if the hostile forces of the regime were not neutralized.

Is that the crusade published and propagated by Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin and the propaganda machine? Does the North Atlantic Treaty Organization forces needed to be brought down for not being a crusade? Will then be legitimate to protect the Libyan people from Muammar Mohammed Abu Minyar Gaddafi’s chess game targeting the civilian population, including aerial and naval attacks?

The foregoing is directly related with the arms embargo originally established in resolution 1970 (2011), especially since the measures taken by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, were not just meant to protect its personnel from the hostile forces, but against the direct or indirect supply, sale or transfer to the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya of the arms and related materiel of all types, including weapons and ammunition, military vehicles and equipment, paramilitary equipment, and spare parts for the aforementioned, including the armed mercenary personnel, used, alas, against the civilians and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

Accordingly, authorized Member States, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, were urged to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), that referred precisely to the arms embargo, implying they were urged to use weapons, especially if it was to protect themselves against hostile forces and to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of the Libyan territory.

Under the present circumstances, the questions that arise, even ignoring what brought the issues to this point, are: why will Muammar Mohammed Abu Minyar Gaddafi’s regime and chess game targeting the civilian population, including aerial and naval attacks, be so hostile against the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization forces, if he was not culpable, the head of state, or, notwithstanding there was not a written Constitution that made it clear, in control of the mercenaries he hired and paid with the Libyan people’s and the state’s resources in his possession? If he had nothing to hide, if he had no interests as head of state, what would be the purpose for the mercenaries? Were his and Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin’s ideas of a crusade, empowered by the League of Arab States, the African Union, the Security Council, without Russia’s veto, amidst other actors, a legitimate reason to play a chess game targeting the civilian population, including aerial and naval attacks? Is the voice of, for instance, Nicolás Maduro Moros or José Daniel Ortega Saavedra, more valid than the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 against the “martyr” Muammar Mohammed Abu Minyar Gaddafi?

In regard to the exclusion of a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of the Libyan territory, we must say it never happened; the North Atlantic Treaty Organization only used aerial means to establish the no-fly zone, to empower the arms embargo and to take all necessary measures against hostile forces and to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi.

There was no occupation, because there was no effective provisional control by a certain ruling power over any part of the Libyan territory, which never was under the formal sovereignty of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or any of its members; additionally, there cannot be a violation to the sovereignty, because Muammar Mohammed Abu Minyar Gaddafi, although the actual leader of at least the mercenaries he consciously paid with the Libyan people’s and the state’s resources under his possession; albeit it, he was not the sovereign, not to mention this was not even rooted in a Constitution; and plus, the people ended up establishing their own Constitution, without North Atlantic Treaty Organization boots on the ground, only operating in the air, especially to protect itself and the people from hostile forces and to empower the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973.

We must remember that some Russian voices were apparently eager for those boots to be on the ground; perhaps the ego of those voices was almost as big as the ego of who has even affirmed the notion of the greatest strategist of all times. Perhaps they thought it actually was a North Atlantic Treaty Organization or a western operation, and that it will be nice it did not succeed, notwithstanding it would signify that the chess game targeting the civilian population, including aerial and naval attacks, was won by Muammar Mohammed Abu Minyar Gaddafi. Well, we may think, if it is under Nicolás Maduro Moros or José Daniel Ortega Saavedra’s logic, then that notion of the greatest strategist of all times, can be valid. Especially if that notion meant lying to stop further UNSCR, in order to protect that type of “legitimate” leaders and sovereignties. That might mean much “force” but lacks legitimate “power”. It may also be popular, especially if the public opinion is maneuvered even extraterritorially through some type of spokespersons and hackers under investigation and effective propaganda machineries. There are, in sum, some experts in lying, and sometimes the truth is difficult to explain.

In that sense, we must go further and distinguish an occupation from an annexation, as happened with Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula, including the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol, where, without any intervention of international law whatsoever, just because the Russian army and its arms and related materiel of all types, including weapons and ammunition, military vehicles and equipment, paramilitary equipment, and its spare parts, were sadly used, presented and camouflaged as “patriotic mercenaries”, objectively the mercenarization of the Russian army as a mournful type of Muammar Mohammed Abu Minyar Gaddafi’s pupils or something analogous; where, under those circumstances, permanent sovereignty was claimed.

In order for these concepts to be understood, the Hague Convention of 1907 becomes relevant. To clarify the limits and spirit of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization subsequent empowerment of it, it is mandatory to take into account that according to article 42 of the Convention, a territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of a hostile army, and that according to article 43 of the same Convention, the authority of the legitimate power in fact must pass into the hands of the occupant. This “crusade of colours” failed to exist: against some Russian eager voices, the territory, in distinction with the Crimean Peninsula, was never placed under the authority of the United Nations Security Council or the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and the authority of the de facto power, passed from chess-player Muammar Mohammed Abu Minyar Gaddafi to the legitimate-under-a-Constitution Libyan people.

Lamentably, where the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 did fail, is in its final implementation, because the panel of experts, were not effective enough to accompany the Libyan people after the success of their fight for freedom, as well after the success of the Operation Unified Protector of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, when it ended on October thirty-first two thousand eleven, following Muammar Mohammed Abu Minyar Gaddafi unfortunate assassination in the fury of the hands of his own people, in consequence of decades of oppression and terrible crimes perpetrated not just in his country, but in other parts of the world.

If he was not responsible for all this: why did his subordinates and mercenaries not continue the game of chess he was playing against the Libyan people?

As stated, the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, did contemplate a Request by the Secretary-General to create for an initial period of one year, in consultation with the Committee, a group of up to eight experts (“Panel of Experts”), under the direction of the Committee, to carry out relevant tasks for the Libyan people and the correct development of the situation.

It was decided that all relevant states, including the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, today the State of Libya, must have taken the necessary measures to ensure that no claim shall lie at the instance of the Libyan authorities, or of any person or body in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, today the State of Libya, or of any person claiming through or for the benefit of any such person or body, in connection with any contract or other transaction where its performance was affected by reason of the measures taken by the Security Council in resolution 1970 (2011), resolution 1973 (2011), and related resolutions.

And especially, it was reaffirmed the intention to keep the actions of the Libyan authorities under continuous review, underlining the readiness to review at any time the measures imposed by resolution 1973 (2011) and resolution 1970 (2011), including by strengthening, suspending or lifting those measures, as appropriate, based on compliance by the Libyan authorities with resolution 1973 (2011) and resolution 1970 (2011); and furthermore, deciding to remain actively seized of the matter.

So albeit the Libyan people did an heroic act by liberating from decades of oppression, and prove of it are the thousands of people who gave their lives fighting Muammar Mohammed Abu Minyar Gaddafi controlled forces and the mercenaries paid with their own resources; although it, the United Nations Security Council, legitimated as well in the League of Arab States, the African Union, discounting of those who though that abstaining to condemn a chess game targeting the civilian population, including aerial and naval attacks, was nice, and also those who, in order to satisfy their egos, were eager that Muammar Mohammed Abu Minyar Gaddafi had won the match; notwithstanding all this, the United Nations Security Council partially failed in remaining actively seized of the matter.

Proof of it can be found in all the propaganda and hackers under investigation and spokespersons and all that, used, at least, to attack Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, the Barack Hussein Obama II and Nicolas Paul Stéphane Sarközy de Nagy-Bocsa respective administrations, as well as the possible impact caused in the victory of the so-called Brexit, and the weakening of the European Union and the United Nations and its Security Council, besides trying to shrink the North Atlantic Treaty Organization; being all these actors and institutions, respectively, pillars of democracy and western values and liberties and for the progress and security of the world, whom, under this logic, caused, alas, the “failure of the crusade” of the United Nations Security Council.

Thereupon, without eluding to admit the pellucid incapacity of the alluded actors and institutions to defend before the public opinion their actions, or to protect themselves against alien propaganda and means and spokespersons and hackers under investigation and all that; after, without ambiguity or vagueness admitting those mistakes, the question to Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, in this part of this brief essay, will be: have you left no sense of decency?

But not just Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin and other “democrats and revolutionaries and populists of the few” were against the so-called crusade; as pointed, Muammar Mohammed Abu Minyar Gaddafi, the chess player, was himself against it.

In such wise, the question is: who was Muammar Mohammed Abu Minyar Gaddafi? To express it in few words: he aspires to be the worst rapist in history and is the pioneer or even founder or the discoverer of transnational terrorism. This “martyr” of the “democrats and revolutionaries and populists of the few” who fight the “empire”; this martyr actually held and hosted special types of congresses where terrorists from all over the world got together to figure out how they will hit the “crusades” and the “empire” and the West. Not just hacking elections or “chemicalling” or “nuclearlling” particular persons but bringing down civilian planes and kidnaping people and many other creative ideas that this “martyr” who must have “resisted” or “made the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to put boots on the ground to lose against his chess game and make some egos happy”; this martyr financed, empowered and gave birth to all that.

Nonetheless, his “martyrdom” does not stop there, he caused and legitimated through his chess game targeting the civilian population, including aerial and naval attacks, that no more United Nations Security Council resolutions were approved, not even with abstentions and correcting the hypothetical mistakes; all the mentioned, based in the paradox that the “sovereignty” this type of “martyrs” represent, is the one the world needs to protect and empower.

In this fashion, the natural question will be: what are the costs for the protection and the empowerment of these particular type of sovereignties?

The first costs are precisely the lessen of western interests and values and liberties and leaders and democracies and institutions and public legitimacy; all these incentivized by the hackers under investigation who interfered in elections and the propaganda machineries and their spokespersons and all that.

The next cost is that the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 was used as a “negative” example that gave time, and, subsequently, legitimacy, to scenarios like that of the Syrian Arab Republic, of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and of the Republic of Nicaragua.

The Syrian Arab Republic scenario, which is the focus of this brief essay, where several United Nations Security Council resolutions were torpedoed notwithstanding their content, degenerated the legitimate claims of the Syrian people in fuel for terrorism, which ironically crossed the territorial limits of the Syrian Arab Republic and acted in other territories, including, absurdity, western countries or even the State of Libya.

That successful obstruction can validly be the major cause for the proliferation of transnational terrorism produced in that scenario.

In the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, it was clear that in case the hostile fire did not stop and Muammar Mohammed Abu Minyar Gaddafi surrender and quit to use force against the people, the Operation Unified Protector must prevail and remain protecting the people, as long as the situation persisted. The duration of the intervention was of a little bit more than seven months, and based in the fact that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization objectives were always the means for the repression and that therefore it affirms not to have notice of civilian casualties; notwithstanding it, the Libyan Revolution had about ten thousand deaths, and although the United Nations Security Council did partially failed in remaining actively seized of the matter, the chaos, even counting the terrorism it imported from the Syrian Arab Republic, was minimum compared with what happened and is occurring in the Syrian Arab Republic. Plus, there is a persistent interest from the western countries as authorized Member States, to, under the authority of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, continue to impulse and boost the State of Libya post-decades-of-tyranny democratic process, especially since it caused a growth on immigration into some European countries.

In contradistinction, in the Syrian Arab Republic, the absence of UNSCR, permitted that the legitimate claims of the Syrians became chaotic in extreme and get divided in many autonomous forces fighting for their particular interest as well as in different scales of terrorism, that, again because of this obstruction, become strong and bravados and morbid bullies, who shared themselves with their neighbours by expanding and exporting their ideologies and ways, which, hilariously, created the conditions for a Russian intervention outside of the United Nations Security Council, what even propitiated the use of chemical weapons attributed to the Syrian Arab Republic, despite the supposed commitments made to the international community under the, from this perspective, Russian Federation’s failed umbrella of legitimacy.

The Syrian Civil War, as the Libyan Revolution, both started at the beginning of two thousand eleven, and albeit all the claimed and publicised cease-fires and all that, that apparently were some kind of trinkets with the sole objective to preserve the regime; notwithstanding all that, adding the use of chemical weapons, the violence not only persists, but is difficult to know if it will end, if it will remain affecting other countries like the State of Israel, or, moreover, if it will trigger a war with the Islamic Republic of Iran, all perhaps with the apparent purpose of satisfying a fixed variety of egotistic desires or in an attempt to push certain type of complex strategy at first sight putatively of Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin; encouraging us to assume that perchance the damage caused to the West in its institutions and values, those hackers under investigation, those spokespersons, the so-called Brexit, and the subsequent plausible discredit to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, to the European Union and to the United Nations Security Council, are part of its aims.

And although Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin or the propaganda machinery allegedly were successful in that plan of action or in communicating all that lies or false perceptions, highlighting the idea of being the West responsible for that “crusade of colours against the martyr of that particular type of sovereignty”; in spite of it, the true is that from the beginning of the Syrian Civil War to the day, there have been more than half a million deaths, without taking in account the flowering of diverse terrorist groups that exported their violence and the other correlated consequences, all based in the idea of “not repeating the Libyan model” where a group of “crusaders of the empire, invaded a sovereign nation”, using the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 as a means to stop the honourable martyr Muammar Mohammed Abu Minyar Gaddafi from playing his virtuous chess game targeting the civilian population, including aerial and naval attacks; ostensibly with the conspicuous purpose to preserve a regime accused of using chemical weapons against civilians and that definitely repressed the Syrian people, justified in the untruth assertion of calling all of them, without distinction, surprisingly, terrorists.

Believe it or not, the global public opinion, fed by traditional and electronic propaganda and hackers under investigation and spokespersons and all that, is favourable to this situation; and these tactics and techniques, although they cannot erase the more than half of a million of skulls and bones in the streets of the Syrian Arab Republic, have been successful in presenting Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin as a champion, as a hero, as a justice provider, as a great strategist; and those who contributed to empower the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, helping to liberate the Libyan people, not just from a dictatorship, but from a horrible tyranny, what most of them wanted, giving their lives following that ideal; those leaders, notwithstanding they in fact acted under the authority of the United Nations Security Council resolution, were criticized and lost popularity in their countries, being clear examples of that, the pro-European statesperson and President of the French Republic, Nicolas Paul Stéphane Sarközy de Nagy-Bocsa, the President of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama II, and the Democrat nominee for the President of the United States of America two thousand sixteen presidential election, Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton, what also degenerated in the so-called Brexit, the discredit of the western democracies, the discredit of the European Union and the discredit of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which seem to be the targets and objectives of that complex strategy.

There is no doubt that President Barack Hussein Obama II, did the right thing by proposing to the United Nations Security Council to act in the Syrian Arab Republic, and after the obstructions, not attacking in big scale, cause although he himself was a victim of these tactics and lies, with it he contributed to the world’s stability and to the rule of the international law. And he was also right by believing the United Nations Security Council partially failed in remaining actively seized of the matter, product of the resolution 1973 (2011), because the Libyan people indeed needed more help and guidance from the international community in their post-tyranny era.

In spite of all these tactics, and techniques, and perceptions, and hackers under investigation, and spokespersons, etcetera, all can form part of a natural process to understand the worth and the importance of the western values and liberties, as well as be product of the pendulum theory, helping in any situation as catalysts for the people’s frustration and for acquiring consciousness of how the propaganda can sell them lies as trues, notwithstanding the tangible irrationality of it.

The significant lessons of what has been object of study in this brief essay, not being in essence important who writes these letters, are how relevant is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization as a bulwark of values and liberties, how it will never lose, how it will always crash its enemies, how it needs to admit new members like it did with the Republic of Colombia and will be smart to do with the United Mexican States, and how it needs to be agile and effective and efficient, in order to ensure the peace and security of its members, and, consequently, of the world. Contributing to what is called to be the most difficult war the humanity will ever face, and that is the battle to save the planet and preserve its life.

In light of all this, and of Aleksandr Válterovich Litvinenko, and of Serguéi Viktorovich Skripal, and of Yulia Sergeyevna Skripal, and all the other possible war and against the humanity crimes, some of them committed with radioactive substances and chemical weapons in the soil of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, plus the hackers under investigation, the spokespersons, and all that; under the alluded circumstances, we think that seeing those actions under the prism of what “an adversary might do”, not through the clear and palpable prism of hostile actions perpetrated by the enemy, yet, de facto, or for something else, it may benefit specific personal interests, and since stopping the annexation of the Crimean Peninsula must have been as easy and affordable as getting it back, the way it was, to Ukraine, then, at that instant, corresponding with reality the bombastic, cacophonous and confusing remark of being those who did not stop it, incompetent and cowards; albeit all that, it is valid to think that calling this an adversary could perhaps, voluntarily or involuntarily, imply a certain degree and/or a certain kind of complicity.

In other words, if those are not the acts of a hostile enemy: what acts can be?

Henceforward, in light of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya’s United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 and the so-called and successful North Atlantic Treaty Organization Operation Unified Protector v. Russian UNSCR-total-absence complex strategy in the Syrian Arab Republic; in that light, we ask Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, the President of the Russian Federation and its elected head of state: where is the moral high ground?

Entradas destacadas
12 comentarios
  • gamefly
    Responder

    Hi there i am kavin, its my first occasion to commenting anyplace,
    when i read this article i thought i could also make comment due to this good paragraph.

  • gamefly free trial
    Responder

    Keep on writing, great job!

  • gamefly free trial
    Responder

    You’re so awesome! I do not think I’ve read through a single thing like this
    before. So wonderful to find someone with some original thoughts on this issue.

    Really.. thank you for starting this up. This website
    is something that is needed on the internet, someone with a bit of originality!

  • gamefly free trial
    Responder

    Hello, I log on to your blogs regularly.
    Your story-telling style is witty, keep up the good work!

  • download minecraft pc
    Responder

    Thank you for the good writeup. It in reality used to
    be a leisure account it. Glance complex to far added agreeable from you!
    However, how can we be in contact?

  • g
    Responder

    Informative article, exactly what I needed.

  • g
    Responder

    I feel that is one of the such a lot important information for me.
    And i’m glad studying your article. But should observation on few basic things, The
    website taste is wonderful, the articles is truly excellent :
    D. Excellent job, cheers

  • g
    Responder

    Asking questions are truly pleasant thing if you are not understanding
    anything fully, except this paragraph presents pleasant understanding even.

pingbacks / trackbacks

Comente (o comenta)

Buscar