Zice că ICC nu e bine. Și să nu cuteze!
Since the creation of the ICC, the United States has consistently declined to join the court because of its broad, unaccountable prosecutorial powers; the threat it poses to American national sovereignty; and other deficiencies that render it illegitimate. Any attempt to target American, Israeli, or allied personnel for prosecution will be met with a swift and vigorous response.
MZ cam dă cu dracu’ după ei. În Siria:
Work is ongoing to resettle internally displaced persons from the Rukban camp that is in the zone of the illegal American occupation. During the past week, about 1,500 residents of the camp were led out of it by Russian servicemen in coordination with the Syrian authorities and with the participation of the elders of local tribes. All necessary conditions meeting international humanitarian standards were created for them to return to their places of permanent residence.
In this context, we took note of the report by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) which states that donor countries failed to fulfil their commitments on aid to Syrians on time. Out of the necessary $3.3 billion, only $180 million has been raised to date. Implementation of UN humanitarian programmes is substantially delayed for lack of funds.
A graphic example of this shortage of money is the disastrous situation in the notorious al-Hawl camp for internally displaced persons where large-scale interruptions in food supplies are expected in summer. Let me recall that this place of temporary accommodation is located on the territory controlled by the Syrian Democratic Forces and their American patrons. The humanitarian disaster that is unfolding there before our eyes was provoked by the crude miscalculations of the US-led anti-ISIS coalition during anti-terrorist operations in the south-east of Syria.
Libia:
Speaking about Libya and the roots of today’s extremely difficult situation, I couldn’t help but see what I consider as an outstanding statement in every way recently made by Mark Field, a UK Foreign Office minister who temporarily oversees the Middle East dossier. During the debate in the House of Commons, he agreed with the arguments of his Labour opponents about the “calamitous” consequences of the British invasion of Iraq and Libya and said the following: “Although the UK played a role in trying to ensure that there was further planning for a Libyan-owned, UN co-ordinated stabilisation effort, that did not come to pass in the way we would have liked. There were clear early successes in the immediate aftermath of 2011 that were not sustained. ”
This statement is beautiful in every way imaginable. It turns out that the introduction of a no-fly zone, coupled with pinpoint bombardments, including on facilities critical to the state infrastructure, is now modestly called “a role in stabilisation effort.” The “effort” apparently implies unceremonious interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign state, overt support of an anti-government coup and, naturally, public lynching and mockery on the body of a national leader who was only recently accepted by those who later shamelessly gave orders and actually sentenced Muammar Gaddafi to death. Speaking about the scenario they would have liked, obviously, that was a reference to a transformation of Libya, which is extremely rich in natural resources, into a hydrocarbons supplier fully controlled by the West with a puppet government “recognized democratic” in words. Apparently, this was the scenario the West would have liked to see implemented, only something went wrong.
Frankly speaking, what is happening now, including around Venezuela is of course completely different; yet the methods used are very similar to the drama that unfolded in Libya: attempts to convince everyone of the need for democratisation, a concentration on the country’s blunders, including economic ones within implementation of its internal policy, using a whole range of pressure tools and interference in the internal affairs of sovereign Libya, relying on those welcome and sanctions against the unwanted. That came unexpected for most countries. The world is watching in amazement what is happening in that country. The question is, is this another blunder? But one has to answer for their blunders.
The problem is that the people who wrote these scenarios, including for Libya, turned out to be mediocre. Apologies have not been uncommon in the British political culture lately. In fact they are made quite often because there is no real remorse behind them. Remember, Gordon Brown apologised for the shameful migrant policy that sent many destitute and orphaned Britons to the colonies for several decades in the 20th century. They apologised for the slavery in the past. Modern UK politicians have also repeatedly apologised. Remember Iraq? Now it’s Libya’s turn, only they didn’t apologise, but said they failed to ensure it goes according to the scenario planned for that country. How many more places on our planet will be forced into these dramatic scenarios with non-dramatic apologies afterwards?
Only faced with an acute socioeconomic crisis, primarily caused by the uncontrolled flow of migration, our Western colleagues began to look for ways to evade any threats or complaints.
One must keep in mind that all those who drafted the scenario for Libya – the politicians, experts, representatives of the executive power of Western states – feel fine, and are as rich and prosperous as ever. But millions of direct and indirect victims of those decision-makers are paying the price for their mistakes, paying their own lives and the lives of their families and friends.
Venezuela:
The UN Security Council held a meeting in New York yesterday at the initiative of the US to discuss the humanitarian situation in Venezuela. Russia’s position, whereby this is not the appropriate platform or format for discussing this topic, remains unchanged. We are not turning a blind eye to the challenging social, economic and humanitarian developments in Venezuela. Still, we do not see any threats to regional, let alone international, stability or security.
Representatives of Donald Trump’s administration are obsessive in hammering home the message that “all options are on the table.” This is a matter of grave concern. Let me reiterate that the possible military scenario, if this is what representatives of the US establishment have in mind, would lead nowhere. It is dangerous, since it could bring about a civil war. We urge our US colleagues to review these irresponsible plans that are at odds with international law. I would like to draw the attention of our Western colleagues once again to what they have done in a number of countries around the world. Just look at the scenarios you have been trying to follow there, and what came out of it.
We will continue to do everything we can to prevent the dangerous scenarios that we witnessed in a number of countries from taking place in Venezuela. We are glad that there is little support for this option within the international community, even though Washington regrettably persists in its efforts.
It is also unfortunate that the US Security Council was not able to refrain from discussing the humanitarian situation in Venezuela. Vice President Mike Pence’s remarks went beyond the bounds of decency when he called for recognising Venezuela’s new leader, backing up his claims with ultimatums and threats of new sanctions.
Representatives of the US administration do not hesitate when it comes to breaking fundamental principles and norms of international and regional law as they seek to unseat the legitimate President of Venezuela. Aggressive rhetoric against official diplomatic representatives of the Venezuelan government, recognising appointees who appeared out of nowhere, illegal takeover of diplomatic property, financial assets and other acts of this kind are all reminiscent of gang warfare rather than what professional politicians and diplomats normally do. It is possible that the US is guided by its own experience when it promotes broad recognition and largely directs the appointment of so-called Venezuelan ambassadors and official representatives around the world. Over the past years, we have seen people without any prior experience in public service being appointed US ambassadors, be it in executive or legislative branches, let alone diplomatic work. These were people that were in good graces of one administration or another or contributed to an election campaign financially. They were rewarded by ambassador posts. This is how it happens in the US. This does not mean, however, that this approach, coupled with violations of international law, should be applied elsewhere.
Washington conceals its disdain for the decades-old international legal framework behind the opaque notion of a rules-based world order and imposes it everywhere, including in regional and international affairs. This fully applies to the call by Mike Pence on the UN Security Council to withdraw the mandate from Venezuela’s permanent representative, as well as to the prospect of the US putting forward a resolution recognising the legitimacy of this country’s alternative government and its representative.
There were new developments lately regarding this situation. In particular, the Permanent Council of the Organisation of American States, a prominent structure in the Western hemisphere, decided to accept the appointment of a permanent representative designated by Venezuela’s National Assembly. This is nothing short of an attempt to legitimise the dual rule in Venezuela. The fallout from this is not just hypothetical, but real, since it establishes the duality of power in a sovereign country. All the prerequisites are created for a major internal standoff in this country. Instead of promoting a settlement and building bridges between the political sides, they are doing just the opposite. The sides are being separated only to be pitted against one another so as to make it impossible to settle this conflict by political or diplomatic means.
In addition to this, having placed on the agenda the question of the status of Venezuelan government’s official representatives, the US delegation ignored all legal arguments of other countries that are members of the Organisation of American States. In particular, this related to the fact that the Permanent Council is not entitled to determine the powers of delegations, and questions of this kind cannot be decided by a simple majority. Instead, they must be reviewed by the General Assembly of the Organisation of American States, to say the least. Therefore, the decision taken by the Permanent Council directly contradicts the organisation’s statutory documents, undermines it and is detrimental to the status of this structure. But who cares when the stakes are so high?
We call on our partners in Latin America and the Caribbean to think about the fallout from this precedent and how it will affect the future work of the Organisation of American States. I want to ask our foreign partners: What will happen if the US tries to further promote the approach of recognising a representative of an impostor as tested within the Organisation of American States? Who will be targeted after Venezuela?
In this connection, I would like to remind you that there is no such notion as collective recognition of governments and their powers in international law. This is a sovereign right of every country. Only the head of state, head of government and foreign minister are entitled to appoint official representatives abroad. We firmly oppose all attempts by a number of countries to question the powers of the Venezuelan delegation within various frameworks, and remain committed to fending off any such attempts moving forward. The ongoing developments are merely an attempt to revert human development to a primitive state.
Regarding humanitarian aid to Venezuela, there are no objective reasons for imposing it on Caracas. There are no hostilities taking place in the country, there were no natural disasters or epidemic outbreaks. Once again, let me point out that the best way to help the people of Venezuela is to lift the illegal unilateral sanctions that target primarily the people of Venezuela. This is what Washington is after, going to great lengths in order to make sure that every Venezuelan suffers and shapes his or her political position accordingly. Washington tested these tactics in many regions of the world.
For example, efforts to block the access of regional and local authorities to financial resources constitute a serious challenge for the people, while no one is questioning the legitimacy of these resources. Just think about it: the cost of humanitarian aid Washington seeks to impose on Venezuela is in the tens of millions of dollars, while the overall effect of sanctions, according to Venezuela, is estimated at over 110 billion dollars. Just give them their money back, lift the sanctions and the country will be back on track. Even a small portion of this enormous amount would have helped deal with the shortage of medicine and other essential goods in Venezuela, and help launch the needed economic reforms. Let me reiterate what we have been saying all along: if the package of measures that is currently used in Venezuela were applied to any so-called developed Western country, let alone developing ones, the targeted country would collapse.
The use by Washington of restrictive measures and threats against countries that work with official Caracas, in particular Cuba, which has been suffering from a US blockade for more than 50 years, is extremely cynical. By the way, by failing to abide by the UN General Assembly resolution urging to end the embargo against Cuba is yet another example of the US showing disdain for UN resolutions.
As for Russia, we stand for strict compliance with norms and principles of international law in all aspects related to a settlement in Venezuela, against ratcheting up tension and imposing outside rule on a sovereign country.
Japonia:
We have noted that Japan continues to voice complaints in connection with various events in the Kuril and South Kuril districts of the Russian Federation’s Sakhalin Region. On April 9, the Japanese side issued another demarche to the Russian Embassy in Japan, due to the deployment of drones of the Russian Federation’s Armed Forces in these districts.
We have repeatedly told Tokyo that such demarches, which essentially amount to interference in Russia’s domestic affairs, are unacceptable. Regardless of the authenticity and nature of this news, we would like to point out once again that Russia has a legitimate right to organise any events on its own territory, including for the purpose of strengthening national defence capabilities.
We perceive the actions of Japanese authorities as further evidence of their stubborn reluctance to recognise the results of World War II, formalised in Japan’s unconditional surrender and a document Japan signed during its admission to the UN in 1956. This attitude borders on revanchism and deviates greatly from the policy to strengthen trust and create a positive atmosphere in bilateral dialogue, as stipulated by the leaders of Russia and Japan.
The two countries’ leaders charted a line stipulating talks, contacts and joint work. It is important to follow this course for resolving all existing matters. A line involving various demarches and protests, especially on matters that I have mentioned, leads nowhere.
Bogdana Osipova:
I would like to once again draw your attention to yet another case of gross violation of the rights of Russian citizens by the US authorities. I’m talking about our compatriot Bogdana Osipova and her young children aged five and six. They were born into a marriage with an American citizen, but they have Russian citizenship.
I can’t bypass this issue today. This is not because I have just commented on a totally inappropriate statement on the website of the US State Department, but because I received several messages from Ms Osipova’s mother. She sent us materials that make your heart sink.
After divorce in 2014, Ms Osipova returned to her native Kaliningrad. However, some time later she had to go to the United States and was arrested there. Her former husband lodged a complaint, and she was accused of kidnapping her own children. For almost two years now, she has been held at one of the Kansas state detention centres.
Now, Osipova is facing a mind-blowing sentence of 43 years in prison. Her claim to her ex-husband for alimony, which was supported by a Russian court, was qualified there as extortion. She is being told that they can release her if her children, now living in Kaliningrad with her relatives, are brought to the United States. We are either at some point of cave period in human history or are slipping back there. Where are the laws, human rights activists and the media?
In fact, the Russian citizen is being held in a US prison as a hostage. No one is hiding this fact. It’s either 43 years in prison, or returning the children to the United States. This is crazy. This is blatant and cruel blackmail. They want to take away her children in exchange for her freedom. Moreover, the children’s rights are also blatantly violated: they are already deprived of their mother, and their American father does not provide them with any financial assistance.
The Russian Embassy in Washington D.C. and the Russian Consulate General in Houston, whose consular district includes the state of Kansas, have been closely following the Ms Osipova’s case since her arrest, and have been providing her with every assistance, helped her find a local Russian-speaking lawyer, and are in touch with her family. We demand that the US authorities stop their lawless behaviour and release the Russian citizen, thus returning the mother to her children.
Cehia:
The verdict of the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic was issued on April 9. It cancelled the decision of the ex-Minister of Justice of the Czech Republic Robert Pelikan, on the basis of which, in March 2018, at the request of American justice, Russian citizen Yevgeny Nikulin, earlier detained in Prague, was extradited.
I would like to remind you that a year ago Russia pointed out the politically motivated haste which the Czech justice showed in the case of Mr Nikulin. Our fair arguments in favour of extraditing him to Russia were not heard back then.
The mistake made by the Czech authorities, caused, as we understood, by the desire to show some kind of “alliance loyalty,” has now become obvious even to themselves. It remains unclear who will be responsible for the consequences and whether the lessons of this incident will be learned.
Asange:
Just now, we watched online as the British police detained WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. We noted that the operation was conducted in the office of the Ecuadorian diplomatic mission with the embassy’s approval. Judging from the format of the operation, a blatant and brutal neglect of the detainee’s human dignity took place. We hope that all Julian Assange’s rights will be observed.
We have seen the first response from the professional journalistic community, non-government organisations and human rights bodies. The entire incident involving Julian Assange is not a recent story. The acts of persecution and harassment, creating inhumane conditions for him constitute burying the freedom of speech and the right to disseminate information. It is a strike against the rights of a journalist. No other opinion is feasible.
Vorbind de Asange, nu putem neglija românismul. Prietenul nostru, HB-M:
Mai ramane sa constatam ca sacrificiul uman depus de Julian Assange pe altarul satisfacerii obiectivelor rusesti este un sacrificiu major si dureros. Omul a trait sapte ani intr-o inchisoare aleasa de el, in Ambasada Ecuadorului la Londra, in conditii mult mai grele decat intr-o inchisoare occidentala medie.
Astfel incat ridicarea protectiei diplomatice ecuadoriene si arestarea lui de politia britanica apar ca gesturi umanitare, mai degraba decat ca o inasprire a situatiei in care se afla Assange. Caruia ii dorim in primul rand sanatate.
LOL!
Desigur, fiind români, suntem adepții “humanitarian bombing“. Cu speranța că ni se mai albește oleacă pielea.
Revenind la MZ, despre jurnalism, și a lui libertate:
What follows from this? We have been issuing warnings for quite a while. This period is over. Another period has begun, which we call the “period of mirror approach to France” in this area.
Între timp, MS e ocupat: să-l felicite pe fra’su, să bată palma cu trădătorii “comunității de valori a lumii libere”, să se laude cu furăciunile tehnologice. Drace calcă-i de mujici nespălați, în obiele împuțite, trăgători de mahorcă și distilat de pufoaică! Pacostea omenirii!
LOL!