Syria: OPCW Whistleblowers Confirm What We Already Knew

November 5, 2019 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Whistleblowers have come forward revealing what many had known all along - that the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) had deliberately altered various reports and suppressed evidence regarding alleged chemical weapon attacks in Syria to help bolster US war propaganda.

The Courage Foundation - comprised of various whistleblowers and investigative journalists - in a statement titled, "Panel Criticizes ‘Unacceptable Practices’ in the OPCW’s investigation of the Alleged Chemical Attack in Douma, Syria on April 7th 2018," would conclude (emphasis added):

Based on the whistleblower’s extensive presentation, including internal emails, text exchanges and suppressed draft reports, we are unanimous in expressing our alarm over unacceptable practices in the investigation of the alleged chemical attack in Douma, near the Syrian capital of Damascus on 7 April 2018. We became convinced by the testimony that key information about chemical analyses, toxicology consultations, ballistics studies, and witness testimonies was suppressed, ostensibly to favor a preordained conclusion.

The panel called on the OPCW to revisit its investigation of the alleged 2018 Douma attack, stating:

This would help to restore the credibility of the OPCW and work towards demonstrating its legally mandated commitment to transparency, impartiality and independence. It is of utmost importance to restore trust in the verification procedures relied upon to implement the prohibitions of the CWC [Chemical Weapons Convention].

The panel included a member of the OPCW itself - José Bustani - who in fact served as the first Director General of the OPCW. He would conclude:

“The convincing evidence of irregular behaviour in the OPCW investigation of the alleged Douma chemical attack confirms doubts and suspicions I already had. I could make no sense of what I was reading in the international press. Even official reports of investigations seemed incoherent at best. The picture is certainly clearer now, although very disturbing.”

A detailed breakdown on precisely what evidence was suppressed can be found here.

Confirming the Obvious

From the beginning, the OPCW's role in Syria was clearly to buttress a US pretext for direct military intervention.

Despite this obvious goal, because many of OPCW staff are professionals and as clearly seen through the actions of whistleblowers coming forward - are principled - the OPCW resorted to very subtle methods to skew the outcomes of its reports and word its conclusions in such a way that media spin could fill in gaps and ambiguity the OPCW itself did not want to directly and overtly lie about.

Despite information within their own reports either indisputably disproving claims of Syria's government using chemical weapons, or admissions that no fact-based claims could even be made with investigators often never even visiting sites where alleged attacks took place, the OPCW would release several politically-motivated conclusions that fed directly into US war propaganda at the time.

The alleged 2018 Douma chemical attack was perhaps the most pertinent example of this, with details of the alleged attack sparse and unconvincing and with the final OPCW report even including a picture taken at a militant weapon's factory where a cylinder similar to those allegedly used in the attack was found among ordnance being prepared for use.

The report also included photographs of the alleged holes made on rooftops from what were claimed to be chemical munitions - but noted that adjacent buildings had similar craters and holes that clearly were not the result of chemical munitions. In other words, evidence suggests the canisters were likely placed into position, taking advantage of holes and craters created by conventional weapons.

Despite evidence suggesting the attack was staged, the OPCW chose to suppress or downplay evidence and use ambiguous language to allow Western media sources to spin the report and "confirm" that not only an attack take place, but that the Syrian government was allegedly behind it.

Only upon reading the actual OPCW report would anyone know just how flimsy accusations against the Syrian government were and that despite Western media headlines accusing the Syrian government, evidence within the report pointed the finger instead at US-backed militants operating in the area at the time.


WMDs 2.0 

Having engineered a proxy conflict in Syria in 2011 that would later stall, the US sought to replicate its "successes" in Libya and neighboring Iraq by searching for a justification for direct military intervention. The US used the pretext of fighting militants it itself had armed and unleashed across Syria including the so-called Islamic State (ISIS) to stage military forces within Syrian territory.

From there, it repeatedly cited alleged chemical attacks in an effort to build international consensus for military intervention against Damascus.

However, it appears that the world was aware that the US was - in essence - repeating nearly identical lies it used regarding Iraq - literally the next nation over from Syria - centered around "weapons of mass destruction" (WMDs) for the purpose of intervening in and destroying yet another Middle Eastern nation.

Between growing global distrust and Russia's own military intervention in Syria in 2015 - US military aggression was checked. The growing global alternative media - both state-sponsored and independent networks and organizations - helped confront this WMD 2.0 narrative.

Today - the momentum has continued - bringing the OPCW back into the spotlight through the Courage Foundation's recent panel in order to finally expose and perhaps even hold accountable those within the OPCW who attempted to use the organization to facilitate war propaganda rather than fulfil its mandate. The panel and the alternative media promoting it is also a celebration of those within the OPCW with the courage to speak out against impropriety.

With the Syrian conflict drawing to a close in favor of Damascus and its allies - and with the US and its axis of collaborators exposed as having organized the premeditated attempted destruction of a nation and its people - a panel exposing OPCW impropriety and how it fit into Western war propaganda might seem irrelevant.

But fully exposing what was done in Syria regardless of whether or not the war is over and no matter how favorably it ended for Damascus and the Syrian people - is absolutely essential in preventing similar impropriety from being used against the next nation that finds itself in Washington's sights.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.  

Will Shake Up at IAEA Impact Iran?

July 31, 2019 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Yukiya Amano's passing has stirred up suspicion and further tensions amid US-Iranian tensions.

Amano was 72 years old and as of mid July 2019 had already begun preparing to step down due to poor health.

A July 18 AFP-JIJI article titled, "Japanese IAEA head Yukiya Amano to step down next year for health reasons: diplomatic sources," reported:

The head of the U.N.’s nuclear watchdog, Yukiya Amano, will step down in March for health reasons, diplomatic sources said Wednesday, as the agency navigates verification of the increasingly fragile Iran nuclear deal.

However, in the wake of his death and because of his perceived opposition to US efforts to undermine the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) or "Iran Deal" - suspicions began circulating that the US or Israel - or both - may have played a role in his death.

Iran-based Tasnim News Agency in an article titled, "Sources Raise Possibility of Israeli Assassination of Amano," would claim:

Informed sources have speculated that late chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Yukiya Amano was assassinated by Israel in collaboration with the US for refusing to give in to pressures to raise new fabricated allegations against Iran’s nuclear program.

Considering the foreign policy track records of either the US or Israel - an assassination targeting members of international institutions impeding Western interests certainly sounds plausible. However no evidence has been provided to suggest Amano was assassinated.

Furthermore - his death whatever the cause will likely have little impact on the IAEA's policies or the general state of US-Iranian tensions - for several reasons.

International Institutions are the Sum of their Member States

International institutions reflect the vector sum of sponsoring nations' interests. As the global balance of power shifts, so too does the proportion of influence of each member state represented by these institutions. In turn the agenda of these institutions changes accordingly.

The IAEA's criticism of Washington's undermining of the Iran Deal reflects not the IAEA's independent assessment - but the collective interests of member nations the IAEA supposedly represents in all matters of nuclear technology. It is no coincidence that in the halls of foreign ministries around the globe similar criticism has been leveled against Washington regarding the Iran Deal.

Nations in Europe attempting to salvage the deal have taken measures to sidestep US sanctions imposed after the US unilaterally and without justification, withdrew. Whatever influence these same nations have within the UN and IAEA has certainly filtered through and was reflected by Amano's position over the Iran Deal prior to his death.

With this in mind, one can expect the IAEA's position to remain relatively unchanged regardless of who becomes the institution's next chief.

Washington's Abuse of International Institutions: A Tired Trick 

The United States and its partners have so regularly abused or even entirely sidestepped international institutions that the legitimacy and impact of these institutions have been greatly diminished.

While the IAEA may reflect a position supporting the Iran Deal's continuation - nations of the world pragmatically sidestepping US sanctions and pursuing multilateral diplomacy is by far more important than anything the IAEA can contribute.

Should the US or Israel succeed in maneuvering to the head of the IAEA a new chief reflecting their interests it will only accelerate the IAEA's irrelevancy further regarding the Iran Deal.


Were Amano's death an assassination - it would have been an incredibly costly move with very little payoff in return. The fate of the Iran Deal rests not in the IAEA's hands but rather in the hands of the deal's remaining signatories and nations which trade with Iran.

The IAEA is not in a position to significantly influence how these nations move forward except by providing or denying the most superficial legitimacy to whatever decisions are made.

US Aggression Toward Iran Already Tramples International Law 

Finally - US foreign policy toward Iran already operates beyond international law. From the terrorists it sponsors within and along Iran's borders, to unilateral sanctions, to provocations, as well as signed and dated policy papers admitting to all of it - no amount of legitimacy lent by the IAEA under even the most ideal circumstances could conceal the criminal nature of US aggression toward Iran. Nor can the IAEA paper over the wider hegemonic ambitions US aggression toward Iran fits into.

The shake up at the IAEA will likely have a minimum impact on the future of the Iran Deal. The deal's fate rests in the hands of Iran's trade partners and the remaining signatories to the deal.

Only if these nations seek the deal's success and work vigorously to circumvent US efforts to sabotage it, can it be saved. If anything, this process will shape the IAEA and its stance, rather than the other way around.

For Iran, its leadership will need to continue exercising maximum diplomatic and strategic patience under Washington's "maximum pressure" campaign. Tehran must continue working on proving through tangible incentives why trading with a stable and unified Iran is more beneficial to interests from Europe to East Asia than Washington's vision of a divided and destroyed Iran.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”. 

US' Destruction of Syria will take UN With it

October 11, 2016 (Ulson Gunnar - NEO) - The United Nations has never looked more impotent, irrelevant and politically motivated in its actions than it has regarding the ongoing conflict in Syria. 

It has categorically failed to take an impartial stance on the conflict which has raged for over 5 years now. This includes a failure to properly identify the conflict as a foreign-funded and backed proxy war rather than a "civil war," as well as identify and hold accountable those nations fueling anti-government hostilities within and beyond Syria's borders.

By failing to do so, the UN has undermined its own credibility, credibility required to ensure the Syrian government and its allies adhere to international law and observe human rights as they execute security operations aimed at restoring order and stability across the country.

Quest for "Veto Limits" is Politically Motivated 

The most recent and perhaps severe collapse of the UN's credibility revolves around US-backed calls to "limit veto power" upon the UN Security Council, effectively allowing the council to green-light without opposition any war the US wills predicated on its well-practiced "humanitarian war" rhetoric. 

The US State Department's Voice of America would publish an article titled, "UN Official Calls for Security Council Veto Limit to Halt Syrian Bloodbath," which claimed:

The United Nations' top human rights official has called for limits on the use of the veto power by the U.N. Security Council's five permanent members to halt the tragedy unfolding in east Aleppo in northern Syria. 

U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra'ad al Hussein has called the situation nothing short of calamitous and likened the horrors being inflicted on the citizens of Aleppo to those that occurred in cities such as Warsaw, Stalingrad and Dresden in World War II.

It is no coincidence that Zeid hails from Jordan, one of several nations directly involved in harboring, training, arming and refitting militant groups along Syria's borders, belying claims that the conflict is a "civil war" rather than a foreign sponsored proxy war.

VOA also claimed:

Russia, often backed by China, has used its veto power in the Security Council to block resolutions it deemed unfavorable to its ally, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. The high commissioner's spokesman, Rupert Colville, said Zeid was calling for bold leadership to end this practice.

And indeed, Russia's veto is all that prevented a recent French-sponsored resolution aimed at establishing a no-fly-zone and thus impunity for terrorists trapped in the city of Aleppo and surrounding it, prolonging the conflict and suffering of those trapped amid it, not ending it.

It was a US-European sponsored no-fly-zone implemented through the UN Security Council (that Russia failed to veto) that transformed Libya from a functioning nation-state into a divided and destroyed failed state.

The ability for Syria and its allies to continue security operations aimed at reclaiming eastern Aleppo from militant groups admittedly affiliated with terrorist organizations is essential in reestablishing peace and stability and normality for the civilian population of Aleppo, the majority of which already live in relative peace and stability in government-held western Aleppo.

Qatari state media, Al Jazeera, in an article titled, "Syria's war: UN Security Council votes on Aleppo," would claim:

Western governments and Russia have clashed at the UN Security Council even while the Syrian government presses ahead with its military offensive against rebel-held areas of Aleppo. 

The UN Security Council voted on Saturday on two rival resolutions on the fighting - one drafted by France calling for an end to air strikes and a second by Russia that urged a ceasefire but made no mention of halting the bombings.

In reality, US and European efforts to end the bombings is based on a necessity to preserve the fighting capacity of militant groups operating in Syrian territory, thus perpetuating the conflict, not ending it — at least not until US and European terms are met regarding regime change and the division and destruction of Syria as a functioning nation-state.

As in Libya, So to in Syria 

Observers should note that similar claims by the US and its allies were made regarding the conflict in Libya in which its UNSC proposals were meant to prevent a "humanitarian crisis" resulting instead in a devastating US-led war that ultimately created by far a vastly larger humanitarian catastrophe than it was allegedly aimed at preventing.

A US-led air campaign destroyed essential infrastructure across Libya, eliminated Libya's security forces and helped propel extremist militant groups the US and its European and Arab allies armed and supported, into power across the remnants of the North African nation-state.

The collapse of Libya as a nation-state has led to racially motivated attacks and ethnic cleansing by US-European-Arab backed militants, transforming Libya into one of now several epicenters fueling Europe's ongoing refugee crisis.

It is clear that the US knew its actions would lead to Libya's collapse, the creation of chaos within Libya and the creation of a refugee crisis that would compromise regional security far beyond Libya's borders. There is absolutely no reason to believe the US and its political allies vying to push forward yet another resolution within the UN Security Council, are unaware that Syria will suffer a similar, if not worse fate than Libya, should they succeed.

The UN, willfully serving as a medium through which the US openly pursues its self-serving politically objectives behind the letter of international law, cripples its own credibility, preventing it from fulfilling its role as the impartial mediator required to resolve global conflicts, including the Syrian conflict.

It is clear that no solution will be found within the halls of the UN, and instead, it will continue to serve as a stage upon which nations perform public relations stunts rather than carry out genuine diplomacy.

Syria's fate will ultimately be decided on the battlefield either through continued combat operations, or direct negotiations with those bearing weapons, face-to-face, far from the halls of the impotent and ultimately compromised United Nations.

 Ulson Gunnar, a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

US Upstaged at UN General Assembly - Who's to Blame?

October 2, 2015 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - The UN General Assembly this year celebrated its 70th anniversary which is why more leaders than usual attended and participated. While the speeches were typical and mostly irrelevant for people already well-informed about world events, there was one particular point to note that made this gathering more telling than most.

It wasn't a point that could be discerned by simply watching the speeches play out on the floor of the General Assembly hall, but rather revealed itself in the reaction to the speeches by American policymakers online.

While they predictably railed against the speech presented by Russian President Vladimir Putin, they also derided US President Barack Obama for being upstaged by his Russian counterpart. But it wasn't President Obama's shortcomings nor that of his speechwriters that led to this apparent humiliation. It was American policy itself, owed to the very policymakers being derisive.

Contrary to popular belief, American policy is not created by politicians either in the Oval Office or in Congress. Instead, doctrine, war plans, domestic and foreign economic policy, and geopolitical and strategic plans laid out for years to come, originate in corporate-financier funded think tanks and among the army of academics, industry leaders, and other lobbyists of special interests employed by them. These think tanks and the policymakers that work within them are unelected, transcending political party lines, and political administrations. 

The fact that a Democratic US president expanded the wars of his Republican predecessor, and provoked those this Republican opponents failed to implement during their term, illustrates perfectly the continuity of agenda prevalent in Western politics. Like the US often accuses its competitors around the world, the United States itself is ruled by an oligarchy of special interests who simply dress up their singular agenda as partisan politics to maintain the illusion of representative governance.

Their wars which in reality serve the singular purpose of achieving and maintaining global geopolitical socioeconomic hegemony are dressed up as "defending the homeland" under Republicans, and "humanitarian interventions" under Democrats. In following the unwarranted wealth and influence wrought from such wars, it can be seen clearly for what purpose they are truly waged. 

Thus, the criticism from across American foreign policy circles in the wake of the UN General Assembly, reveals precisely where America's true problems lie. It was their policy that President Obama was attempting to present to the world at the UN General Assembly. President Obama wasn't upstaged because he is a poor orator or because he depends on incompetent speechwriters, but because nothing the United States is truly doing around the world could be honestly presented to the public, leaving only the same tired rhetoric and boundless hypocrisy that even the least observant among us are beginning to notice.

This can best be illustrated in Syria, where the United States claims to be committed to defeating terrorism, all while it transparently supports terrorist militants in its goal to overthrow the government in Damascus. Thus, President Obama's talking points during the UN General Assembly regarding Syria rang particularly hollow. Conversely, when Russia stated that it planned to defeat terrorism in Syria, the world could already see clearly that it has been Russia supporting the only force within Syria's borders confronting terrorism - the government in Damascus.

American policymakers don't appear to realize or at least be willing to accept that it is they and the special interests they serve that are responsible for America's decline, its unpopularity, and the rise of competitors able to upstage the US in front of the UN General Assembly, and upon the stage of geopolitics.

These policymakers responsible for America's current course will never admit that they are not as smart as they believe themselves to be, or that their poor judgement, petty ambitions, egos, and plain incompetence has led to this irreparable decline in American legitimacy and influence.

And because they can never admit it, they can do nothing to resolve it. But maybe that is for the better.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine“New Eastern Outlook”.   

UN Peacekeepers: Enemies of International Law

May 6, 2015 (Valery Kulikov  - NEO) - The recent scandal involving the sexual abuse of African children carried out by members of a UN peacekeeping mission, despite numerous efforts of this international organization to play it down, will not be ignored. And the international community must finally recall what was the original purpose of the UN as established by allied powers after the Second World War in the name of peace and security for all people on the planet.

According to a series of publications by Bruxelles2, France Info, Guardian and a number of other media outlets, a number of French and Georgian soldiers that were employed in the UN peacekeeping operation “Sangaris” in Central Africa, are responsible of child sexual abuse.

It should be recalled that an armed conflict between the government of the Central African Republic and Muslim rebels, many of which took part in the civil war of 2004-2007, resulted in the French Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian announcing that France would deploy a thousand soldiers in CAR to carry out a UN peacekeeping mission. On December 9, 2013 the United States decided to take part in this operation, while the Georgian parliament also agreed to send its soldiers to CAR a year later, on February 22, 2014. By June 2014 the number of Georgian Armed Forces in the Central African Republic reached 140 members.

According to the French news agency France Info, French and Georgian soldiers were raping children aged 8 to 15 years in the area near M’Poko airport and were subjecting them to sexual exploitation.

Some of the incidents that occurred between December 2013 and June 2014 in a refugee camp at M’Poko airport were depicted in a special UN closed report that was titled “Sexual Abuse on Children by International Armed Forces.” In particular, the document contains witnesses of local boys that were subjected to sexual exploitation, including rape and homosexual relations in exchange for food and water. The majority of the victims were orphans, increasing their vulnerability. In the summer of 2014 this report was handed over to the office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in Geneva, however no action was taken to investigate the factual findings.

In these circumstances and in order to stop systematic child rape in CAR, one of the staff members of the Geneva Branch of the United Nations Anders Kompass had given those documents to French authorities on his on initiative, in hopes that they would take effective measures to investigate the described incidents and punish those responsible. However, the highest ranks of the United Nations didn’t seem willing to “wash their dirty linen in public”, instead they are now planning to sack the “snitch” for an “unauthorized disclosure of proprietary information.”

In this regard, one must note that in the past the United Nations has been caught trying to conceal incidents of pedophilia numerous times, including sexual exploitation of children in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Kosovo and Bosnia, along with concealing incidents involving sexual harassment in Haiti, Burundi and Liberia.

Recently, some serious accusations against the UN were made by James Wasserstrom, a former US diplomat that was fired from the UN once he expressed his suspicions about the corruption among senior officials of the former UN mission in Kosovo. In particular, this former diplomat stressed the fact that instead of punishing Anders Kompass, this international organization must have taken all possible measures to prevent such abuse in the future, along with punishing all responsible figures in a timely manner. A responsible official of the Swedish Foreign Ministry Anders Ronquist, has also raised his voice in the defense of Anders Kompass, stating that those incidents must never again occur in the future. There’s little doubt that those crimes along with the UN’s attempts to hide them do not erode the credibility of this international organization.

But the fact is that this credibility has already been jeopardized by numerous cases of unjustified use of force initiated by certain UN members to achieve their own geopolitical goals. Once the UN became a political servant of Washington, it has started serving US military contractors that hungry for even more bloodshed all across the globe. This policy has already led to the death and suffering of hundreds of thousands of civilians in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and other countries of the Middle East, along with Africa and the former Yugoslavia.

If there’s going to be no change in the policies and actions of the United Nations officials now, it is possible that this organization may suffer the sorry fate of its predecessor – the League of Nations, that was just as unable to prevent conflicts and global threats to humanity on the basis of respect to international laws.

Valery Kulikov, political analyst, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

The Troubling Truth Behind the Ebola Outbreak

April 13, 2014 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - In the Guardian’s article, “Panic as deadly Ebola virus spreads across West Africa,” it reports:

Since the outbreak of the deadly strain of Zaire Ebola in Guinea in February, around 90 people have died as the disease has travelled to neighbouring Sierra Leone, Liberia and Mali. The outbreak has sent shock waves through communities who know little of the disease or how it is transmitted. The cases in Mali have added to fears that it is spreading through West Africa.

The Guardian also reported that  Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), also known in English as Doctors Without Borders, had established treatment centers in Guinea, one of which came under attack as locals accused the foreign aid group of bringing the disease into the country. Also under fire is the government of Guinea itself, which has proved incapable of handling the crisis.

 

This latest outbreak, which has yet to be contained and is being considered by Doctors Without Borders as an “unprecedented epidemic,” illustrates several troubling truths about global health care, emergency response to outbreaks, and the perception many have of a West subjecting the developing world to a “medical tyranny.”

 

Failure to Prepare

 

In 2012, when Doctors Without Borders concluded its response to an Ebola outbreak in Uganda, it claimed in its post, “MSF Concludes Emergency Ebola Response in Uganda,” that:

The Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) emergency response to an outbreak of Ebola in Uganda has come to an end. The MSF team handed over the Ebola treatment center it set up in Uganda’s western Kibaale district to the Ugandan Ministry of Health (MoH).

The statement also claimed:

As part of a preparation plan for future outbreaks, MSF also restored a treatment unit in Mulago hospital, located in Kampala, Uganda’s capital. “Uganda has developed the capacity to respond to Ebola emergencies,” said MSF emergency coordinator Olimpia de la Rosa. “We can rely on the capability of Ministry of Health staff to take over and manage Ebola cases with all safety guarantees.”

One must wonder then, if MSF and other global health agencies can train Ugandan medical staff and hand over responsibilities to prevent a future outbreak to the government of Uganda, why haven’t similar provisions been undertaken in nations like Guinea, Liberia, Mali, and Sierra Leone. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), Ebola outbreaks occur “primarily in remote villages in Central and West Africa, near tropical rainforests.” Why then have nations in Central and West Africa not been prepared for such outbreaks – particularly when the many of the nations that back MSF are already heavily involved in the internal affairs of many of these nations?

 

France alone has expended hundreds of millions of euros during its ongoing military operations in Mali, reported by France 24 in 2013 to be costing the European nation approximately 2.7 million euros a day. Money spent on costly military operations designed to project Western hegemony across Northern and Western Africa, an extension of the West’s intervention in Libya, would lead one to believe that funds should also be available to prevent “unprecedented epidemics” of deadly diseases like Ebola, but apparently the same preparations made in Uganda have been neglected in French-occupied Mali, as well as other Ebola-prone nations.

 

While the West poses as chief arbiter of humanity and through its international organizations, intervening when crises strike, its failure to prepare other nations prone to Ebola outbreaks with a management formula already perfected in Uganda at the very least shakes public confidence and trust. When it intervenes in these very nations for geopolitical ambitions under the pretenses of “democracy,” “development,” and “human rights” but utterly fails to address the dire needs of the very people it claims to be rushing to the aid of, such confidence and trust is only further shaken.

 

Distrust Leads to Suspicion

Read the rest at New Eastern Outlook... 

UN's Syria "Aid" Appeal is Bid to Relieve Trapped Terrorists

December 17, 2013 (Tony Cartalucci) - In August 2011, the Telegraph reported in an article titled, "Libya crisis: Rebel leaders hoping to starve Gaddafi stronghold of Sirte into submission," that:

Rebel leaders hope to starve Colonel Gaddafi's home town of Sirte into submission, laying siege to his last remaining stronghold in an attempt to avoid mass bloodshed, according to the man spearheading efforts for a peaceful takeover.

Assisting them in the starvation of the 100,000 civilians who populated the coastal city of Sirte was NATO who rained bombs down upon the besieged city relentlessly while terrorists on the ground cut off electricity, water, gas, food, and other essential supplies.

AP would also report on the starvation of Sirte in its article, "U.N. Warns Libya Is Short of Water, Fuel, Medicine:" 

Rebel commanders have been negotiating with tribal leaders in Qaddafi's hometown of Sirte, hoping to avoid further bloodshed. They announced Thursday that they had extended the negotiations' deadline for another week, from this coming Saturday. 

"We want to save our fighters and not lose a single one in battles with Qaddafi's forces," said Mohammed al-Rajali, a spokesman for the rebel leadership in the eastern city of Benghazi. 

"In the end, we will get Sirte, even if we have to cut water and electricity" and let NATO pound it with airstrikes, he said.

And despite the title of the report, the UN made no mention of the tactics of the terrorists and their NATO backers. Instead, the UN was more concerned with aiding areas of the nation already taken by NATO's proxy army. 

In 2011, the general consensus appeared to be that cutting off an entire city surrounded on all sides by desert and sea, constituted a "humane" and "peaceful" means of taking the remaining strongholds of the overthrown Libyan government. How times and the sensibilities of the West have changed...

The Syrian Arab Army Surrounds Al Qaeda 

It is now the end of 2013, with the conflict in Syria having dragged on for three years. The Syrian government has decisively turned the tide against waves of NATO-backed foreign terrorists and their extremist collaborators within the country, having restored order in many parts of the country and having surrounded the terrorist proxies in a dwindling number of districts across the Syria. 

Image: "Humanitarian aid - Qatari Red Crescent-style." As the UN prepares to flood the Syrian conflict with another 6.5 billion dollars, tales of how "aid money" is ending up facilitating the activities of terrorists inside and along Syria's borders suggest the UN is not trying to provide mercy for the Syrian people, but perpetuate the tragedy further still. Were it truly interested in relieving Syrians, it would expose the true genesis of the conflict to the world and hold those responsible accountable. 

....

In some areas, the terrorists have been completely surrounded, cut off from reinforcements and supplies. Just as in Libya, the Syrian Arab Army is waiting for the terrorists to be starved out rather than attempt a bloody assault - the difference being that civilians - women and children - most certainly are allowed (at least by the Syrian government) to leave the besieged areas, leaving the terrorists alone.

Reuters attempts to frame the Syrian government as obstructing aid and intentionally leaving women and children to starve and freeze to death. In its article titled, "Syria uses red tape, threats to control UN aid agencies," it states: 

Syrian government is accused of using hunger as a weapon of war against its people and preventing U.N. aid staff in delivering food and medicines to rebel-held suburbs.

Reuters continues (emphasis added):

As the United Nations launched an annual appeal on Monday to help 16 million people affected Syria's civil war, divisions among world powers that have crippled peacemaking are also denying UN staff the power to defy President Bashar al-Assad's officials and push into neighbourhoods now under siege. 

"In government-controlled parts of Syria, what, where and to whom to distribute aid, and even staff recruitment, have to be negotiated and are sometimes dictated," said Ben Parker, who ran the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) in Syria for a year until last February. 

"According to the Syrian government's official position, humanitarian agencies and supplies are allowed to go anywhere, even across any frontline," he wrote last month in the journal Humanitarian Exchange. "But every action requires time-consuming permissions, which effectively provide multiple veto opportunities." Fighting and rebel groups are also obstacles. 

The United Nations appealed for $6.5 billion on Monday to help 16 million people affected by the Syrian civil war, including millions made hungry and homeless by the conflict soon entering its fourth year. The world body estimates about a quarter of a million Syrians are living under siege as winter bites, most of them encircled by government forces, but also including 45,000 in two towns in the north that are besieged by anti-Assad rebels. 

A binding Security Council resolution could formally oblige the authorities to let aid agencies into areas like the Damascus suburbs and the old city of Homs, where local doctors say children are dying of malnutrition. But divisions between Western powers, backing the rebels, and Russia, have paralysed the world body over Syria since the conflict began in 2011.

Of course, Reuters excuses itself once again from having to qualify any of its claims - particularly those regarding the intentional starving and freezing of women and children. It does so by stating: 

Lack of access for independent agencies makes it hard to verify food and medical supplies in many areas. But opposition activists have posted video of the bodies of several skeletal children who local doctors say died of malnutrition.

Once again, accusations of the Syrian government's "crimes against humanity" are solely based on the "activists say" school of journalism, where "rebel" propagandists renowned as serial liars, have posted videos of unverified footage then reported as fact by their Western collaborators - with disclaimers later buried deep within reports.

What the West is Using the UN for this Time 

The gambit is two-fold. First, to portray the Syrian government as guilty of yet more "crimes against humanity," which then justifies the second - passing a binding UN Security Council resolution that would give the West direct access to their terrorist proxies inside of Syria under the guise of providing "humanitarian aid." 

This is being done in conjunction with plans to drop the pretense of "moderate rebels," and fully back Al Qaeda and other extremist fronts through a network of proxies including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, and Jordan. 

In a recent e-mail leak released by the Syrian Electronic Army (SEA), correspondences between US contractor Matthew Van Dyke and Western journalists revealed that in addition to intentionally deceiving the  public regarding the nature of the conflict, aid shipments were being used to smuggle in equipment, fighters, and weapons. 

Van Dyke being an armed militant himself, along with those in his company, riding freely back and forth between Libya and Syria on aid ships should raise suspicions at the very least regarding "aid" the UN plans to provide entrapped terrorists.

Stories like Alakhbar English's "Qatar Red Crescent Funds Syrian Rebel Arms," also raises immense concern about so-called aid flowing into Syria specifically to help those fighting the government. The article reports: 

Sources in the investigation team said that Mahmoud confessed to receiving around $2.2 million from Khaled Diab, a Qatar Red Crescent official. He was then to hand the money over to a Lebanese cleric identified as O.O., born in 1983 and affiliated with Muslims Without Borders, in the Bekaa village of Bar Elias. 

“Through the cleric, Mahmoud was able to acquire 30 RPG launchers for $900,000 and 300 shells for $300,000, which were then transferred to Syria by a smuggler known as Anwar or his nom de guerre Abu Salah.” The smuggler then handed over the weapons to the Syrian national known as Abu Abdullah in the Damascus countryside. 

Mahmoud also bought 100 Kalashnikovs and an ammunitions cache for $40,000 from the Ain al-Hilweh Palestinian refugee camp in southern Lebanon. The source added that Mahmoud entered the refugee camp with the Syrian national Mohammad Abdullah, known as Abu Hamza, under the guise of distributing humanitarian aid to refugees from Syria.

One can only imagine what will be bought and done with the $6.5 billion the UN has called for to assist those in terrorist-held territory. It will most likely be fed directly into the terror networks the NATO and its regional allies have been preparing to expand.

Should the UN decide to truly care about ending the ongoing catastrophe that is the proxy invasion of Syria by foreign-backed terrorists, it could always point out the true nature of the conflict and hold those responsible for it, NATO and its regional axis, fully accountable. Anything less is but a criminal ruse meant to intentionally perpetuate the conflict and give the West yet another chance to end it on terms they find favorable. 

A Bleak Look at the West's Vision for Syria

Terrorist controlled areas are scenes of sectarian brutality, fear, kidnappings, mass murder, collective punishment, and pillaging - the obvious end game of Western-backed regime change.

April 20, 2013 (LD) - Reports are starting to creep into Western media regarding sweeping atrocities committed by the so-called "Syrian rebels." Areas held by terrorists have become bleak landscapes both literally and socioeconomically - with sectarian extremists running the vast majority of civilians from towns and leaving whoever remains in perpetual fear for their lives, and in utter despair for their futures.

Image: Western-backed terrorists have driven out most religious and ethnic minorities, leaving Syria's ancient churches all but abandoned. Those who remain, live a life of perpetual fear and uncertainty. While the UN grandstands, claiming the refugee crisis is the result of the Syrian government, The Atlantic reported that some 300,000 Syrian Christians have fled the country, apparently from areas held not by the Syrian government, but by Western-backed sectarian terrorists. (photo by Danny Gold)

....   

Fighting for "Democracy"

We were first told that the so-called "rebels" were fighting for "democracy." As the West began to acknowledge that the "rebels" were in fact sectarian extremists, the narrative shifted to simply, "fighting to oust Assad." However, entire battles have been fought not between the Western-backed terrorists and the Syrian Army, but rather between the terrorists and local tribes, Kurdish militias, and virtually anyone who attempts to oppose the invading militants, many of whom are foreigners.

In Reuters' "Rebels battle with tribesmen over oil in Syria's east," the narrative of  "pro-democracy" "freedom fighters" crumbles entirely:

Islamist rebels are clashing with tribesmen in eastern Syria as struggles over the region's oil facilities break out in the power vacuum left by civil war, activists said on Saturday.

One dispute over a stolen oil truck in the town of Masrib in the province of Deir al-Zor, which borders Iraq, set off a battle between tribesmen and fighters from the Nusra Front, an al-Qaeda linked rebel group, which left 37 killed, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.

The fighting, which started in late March and lasted 10 days, was part of a new pattern of conflict between tribal groups and the Nusra Front, said a report from the Observatory, a British-based group which opposes Syria's government and draws information from a network of activists in the country.

Despite quoting the discredited "Syrian Observatory for Human Rights," the Reuters report backs not only independent geopolitical analysis from the past two years, but the narrative put forth by the Syrian government itself. That al-Nusra is fighting in Syria, that it constitutes the most prominent armed front in the conflict, and that it is guilty of an increasingly long list of atrocities is a universally accepted fact. The only point of contention put forth by the West is whether or not the opposition consists entirely of sectarian extremists, or if there are indeed "secular" fighters in any significant quantity amongst the opposition. In eastern Syria, at any rate, it appears Al Qaeda's al-Nusra is the sole "opposition."

Reuters continues:

Masrib tribesmen called for help from Assad's forces against Nusra, according to the Observatory and a fighter with the Islamist group.

Nusra responded by blowing up 30 houses after the battle, in which 17 rebels were killed, at least four of them foreigners, the fighter said on Skype.

What is being described is collective punishment of the variety used by the Nazis against the people it invaded and attempted to subjugate. The fate of territory under terrorist control in eastern Syria portends the fate of greater Syria should the government fall to what is clearly a pillaging sectarian tyranny.

Not only are the "rebels" not fighting for "democracy," they are not even fighting the Syrian government. Instead they are fighting to pillage the oil from a region they invaded and are currently occupying. What's worse is that the EU is attempting to lift sanctions on Syrian oil, specifically so these occupying sectarian extremists can further fund and expand their campaign. Reuters reports:

The incentive for disputes over lucrative resources may be increased by plans by the European Union to lift an embargo on Syrian oil, which would make it easier to sell.

The EU said this week it wants to allow Syria's opposition to sell crude in an effort to tilt the balance of power towards the rebels, who are outgunned by Assad's fighter planes and long range missiles.

What of Syria's Christians?

APR's article, "Syria's Christian Minority Lives in Fear of Kidnapping and Street Battles," gives us updated insight to the plight of Syria's Christian population, who had lived in fellowship with Muslims, Druze, and Kurds until the Western-fueled sectarian bloodbath triggered in 2011.

The article states: 

Prior to the conflict, many saw Ras al-Ayn as a beacon of tolerance between Muslims and Christians. Residents say that they there is still a camaraderie among the citizens that live there, but that problems arise from those fighting who don't live in the city, be they FSA, YPG [Kurdish militia known as the Popular Defense Forces], or Islamists. 

The article describes the fighting, with "rebel" militants invading Ras al-Ayn. The Syrian military and Kurdish militias (referred to in the article as YPG), were pushed out of areas where the militants then established a foothold. Devastation by fighting, rampant crime, and sectarian violence caused some 65% of the population to flee the city - solving the mystery of just who is driving the refugee crisis - ironically the same refugee crisis the UN and the West have attempted to use as justification to further fund, arm, and aid the terrorists. 

The article would continue by describing life for those who remain, who appear to be barricaded in what might be described as a ghetto:

In an article written for a Christian Orthodox website, Syrian Orthodox Archbishop Eusthathius Matta Roham called the Islamists, without naming Jabhat specifically, a great threat to the lives of Syrian Christians in Ras al-Ayn. He also praised the YPG for rooting out the rebels and protecting the Christian neighborhood.

Like many other Christians interviewed, a 24-year-old Christian named Diana refuses to answer questions about the specific armed factions. "We don't know about the fighting groups. All we want is the fighting to stop," she said. "My home has been destroyed, everyone has left."

I asked her who she was scared of. "Everyone," she replied. "My future is gone."

Previously she had studied in Aleppo, but she rarely leaves her neighborhood now.

Of particular concern to the Christians is kidnapping, which only some would admit seems specifically targeted at Christians.

Despite this damning indictment, the Atlantic piece is also filled with attempts to downplay what is clearly a catastrophic sectarian conflict, spawning atrocities and a humanitarian crisis. Such a blood bath was warned against as early as 2007, where Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh reported in the New Yorker that the US, Saudi Arabia, and Israel were purposefully planning to unleash sectarian extremists in Syria to overthrow the government. While the West now claims the rise of Al Qaeda is an unintended coincidence, Hersh reported in the 2007 article, "The Redirection," that:

To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.

Hersh quoted former CIA agent Robert Baer, who warned about the dangers of fueling sectarian extremists:

Robert Baer, a former longtime C.I.A. agent in Lebanon, has been a severe critic of Hezbollah and has warned of its links to Iranian-sponsored terrorism. But now, he told me, “we’ve got Sunni Arabs preparing for cataclysmic conflict, and we will need somebody to protect the Christians in Lebanon. It used to be the French and the United States who would do it, and now it’s going to be Nasrallah and the Shiites. 

While Baer's comments were in regards to Lebanon, the conflict in neighboring Syria has turned out to be just as "cataclysmic," with Syria's Christians and other minorities in equal or greater peril.

Clearly, Western-backed terrorists are not just fighting the "Assad regime," they are fighting anyone opposed to their sectarian ideology which is both hardly "democratic," and hardly anything to do with "freedom." Predictably, unthinkable atrocities are being carried out in a wave of violence and subjugation that is leaving a broken society everywhere it sweeps through. Through the destruction of physical infrastructure, the crumbling of Syria's institutions, and the extermination or driving out of Syria's minorities, what the West backs as "regime change," is in reality calculated sectarian genocide.

In terrorist-controlled territory, we see a vignette of the "future Syria" the West imagines - one not unlike the now dysfunctional, decimated Libya, or the totalitarian regimes of Tunisia and Egypt, both ruled by the sectarian crypto-terrorist Muslim Brotherhood.

These are purposefully imposed nightmares couched behind "humanitarian concern" and "democracy promotion." It is clear that in areas the Western media claim are devoid of government troops, abuse, atrocities, tyranny, humanitarian catastrophe, and despair only increase. The rationale made by the West to continue fueling this conflict and extend this state of chaos across the entire country, poses to the rest of the world a moral imperative to not only condemn this conspiracy against the Syrian people, but to oppose it and ensure that it utterly fails.

UN Defends NATO's Premeditated Genocide in Syria

As long-planned sectarian bloodbath unfolds, UN deceitfully labels atrocities as "reprisals." 

December 21, 2012 (LD) - As early as 2007, it was reported that the US, Israel, and Saudi Arabia, together were not only organizing, funding, training, and arming militants directly linked to Al Qaeda to be used against Syria and Iran, but knew well in advance that by doing so, they would trigger an unprecedented "cataclysmic conflict" driven by sectarian extremism. Not only was such sectarian violence expected, it was desired ahead of redrawing a new map for the Middle East - one that favored Western corporate-financier and geopolitical interests, while keeping the region weak, divided, and infighting.

Now, the UN is feigning indignation over the inevitable, increasingly overt sectarian nature of the so-called "Free Syrian Army" and its so-called "rebellion." Entire communities of minorities face extermination. To blunt the impact this will have on public opinion, UN special adviser on the prevention of genocide, Adama Dieng has preemptively stated:

"I am deeply concerned that entire communities risk paying the price for crimes committed by the Syrian government."

According to Reuters' article, "U.N. anti-genocide envoy: Syria minorities face reprisal risk," the genocide NATO and its allies are arming, funding, and willfully fueling is merely "reprisals." What Reuters doesn't report is that US, Saudi, and Lebanese officials had for years warned that US foreign policy, started under Bush and continued in earnest under Obama, would trigger this very sort of sectarian violence - driven by Al Qaeda-style fanaticism, not "reprisals." 

Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, Seymour Hersh writing for the New Yorker, wrote in his 2007 article, "The Redirection: Is the Administration’s new policy benefitting our enemies in the war on terrorism?" that: 

"To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda." -The Redirection, Seymour Hersh (2007) 

Hersh's report would continue by stating: 

"the Saudi government, with Washington’s approval, would provide funds and logistical aid to weaken the government of President Bashir Assad, of Syria. The Israelis believe that putting such pressure on the Assad government will make it more conciliatory and open to negotiations." -The Redirection, Seymour Hersh (2007)

Further admissions of a joint US-Israeli-Saudi conspiracy against Syria included: 

"...[Saudi Arabia's] Bandar and other Saudis have assured the White House that “they will keep a very close eye on the religious fundamentalists. Their message to us was ‘We’ve created this movement, and we can control it.’ It’s not that we don’t want the Salafis to throw bombs; it’s who they throw them at—Hezbollah, Moqtada al-Sadr, Iran, and at the Syrians, if they continue to work with Hezbollah and Iran.” -The Redirection, Seymour Hersh (2007)

 In regards to sectarian extremism in particular it was forewarned that: 

"Robert Baer, a former longtime C.I.A. agent in Lebanon, has been a severe critic of Hezbollah and has warned of its links to Iranian-sponsored terrorism. But now, he told me, “we’ve got Sunni Arabs preparing for cataclysmic conflict, and we will need somebody to protect the Christians in Lebanon. It used to be the French and the United States who would do it, and now it’s going to be Nasrallah and the Shiites" -The Redirection, Seymour Hersh (2007)  

Hezbollah's leader, Hassan Nasrallah was also featured in Hersh's report and had also warned of imminent and spreading sectarian war purposefully stoked by the West:

Nasrallah said he believed that President Bush’s goal was “the drawing of a new map for the region. They want the partition of Iraq. Iraq is not on the edge of a civil war—there is a civil war. There is ethnic and sectarian cleansing. The daily killing and displacement which is taking place in Iraq aims at achieving three Iraqi parts, which will be sectarian and ethnically pure as a prelude to the partition of Iraq. Within one or two years at the most, there will be total Sunni areas, total Shiite areas, and total Kurdish areas. Even in Baghdad, there is a fear that it might be divided into two areas, one Sunni and one Shiite.”

He went on, “I can say that President Bush is lying when he says he does not want Iraq to be partitioned. All the facts occurring now on the ground make you swear he is dragging Iraq to partition. And a day will come when he will say, ‘I cannot do anything, since the Iraqis want the partition of their country and I honor the wishes of the people of Iraq.’ ”

Nasrallah said he believed that America also wanted to bring about the partition of Lebanon and of Syria. In Syria, he said, the result would be to push the country “into chaos and internal battles like in Iraq.” In Lebanon, “There will be a Sunni state, an Alawi state, a Christian state, and a Druze state.” But, he said, “I do not know if there will be a Shiite state.”

The UN once again is abusing its own self-appointed authority by excusing and spinning premeditated sectarian genocide designed to advance a documented conspiracy admitted to years ago. More recently, this conspiracy to destroy Syria through engineered and purposefully protracted violence was documented further by the very corporate-financiers themselves amongst the pages of reports turned out by their own policy think-tanks. 

The Brookings Institution in their "Middle East Memo #21: Saving Syria: Assessing Options for Regime Change (.pdf)," openly stated they sought to "bleed" Syria in purposefully protracted violence:

"The United States might still arm the opposition even knowing they will probably never have  sufficient power, on their own, to dislodge the Asad network. Washington might choose to do so simply in the belief that at least providing an oppressed people with some ability to resist their oppressors is better than doing nothing at all, even if the support provided has little chance of turning defeat into victory. Alternatively, the United States might calculate that it is still worthwhile to pin down the Asad regime and bleed it, keeping a regional adversary weak, while avoiding the costs of direct intervention." -pages 8-9, Assessing Options for Regime Change, Brookings Institution.

Such documents completely contradict the public statements issued by the West, which attempt to portray their involvement in Syria as motivated by "humanitarian concerns," "moral imperatives," and the "promotion of democracy." In reality, the goal is to prolong the violence as long as possible, expedite the loss of life, and to destroy the nation by fueling violent militants - just as it was the plan in 2007 when Hersh penned "The Redirection." The sectarian component of the current conflict is not an unexpected result of violence that began only in 2011, it was an integral part of the West's foreign policy since 2007. 

The sectarian genocide in Syria was purposefully engineered by Western policy makers, and now is willfully covered up, spun, and excused by the UN and the Western mass media alike.