(with
the request for publication)
Unser
Politikblog | 08.09.2018
Statement
by a former constitutional plaintiff
by:
Sarah Luzia Hassel-Reusing
Again
an escalation in Syria to nuclear war is threatening because of a
false flag chemical weapon attack, which is presumably in
preparation. The ideology behind that would already have been
outlawed, if we had a completely functioning rule of the law.
The
ideology behind the „humanitarian intervention“
The
ideology of the „humanitarian intervention“ originates from the
study „Self-Determination
in the New World Order“ by the think tank „Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace“ of the year 1992.
The
study „Self-Determination in the New World Order“ aims at more
interventions incl. military interventions by the USA and its allies,
disattracting from the legal limits, which are set by the sovereignty
of the states (art. 2 par. 1 UN Charter), by the prohibition of
aggressive war (art. 2 par. 4 UN Charter), by the prohibition of
interference into inner affairs (art. 2 par. 7 UN Charter), and by
art. 29 no. 3 UDHR, which prohibits, in order to serve peace, the
instrumentalization of the universal huamn rights against the UN
Charter. For this purpose, the think tank refers to the right of
the peoples to self-determination (art. 1 Uno Social Pact, art. 1 UN
Civil Pact, art. 1 no. 2 UN Charter) and ignores the UN General
Assemlby resolution 2625
of the 24.10.1970 on principles under international law regarding
friendly relations and cooperation between the states,
which has already regulated the area of tension between the right of
the peoples to self-determination and the sovereignty of the states.
For the purpose of its concept, the study the term „people“ to
any group, which objectively or (according to the opinion of its
members) subjectively is different from others regarding ethnic,
linguistic, religious, or cultural ties (p.47+48). It differentiates
self-determination movements (p. 49-52) between anti-colonial,
sub-state (strife for autonomy or separatism), trans-state
(separatism affecting the territories of several states),
self-determination of dispersed peoples, Indigenous
self-determination, and representative self-determination (for more
representative democracy).
The
study recommends to the USA as possible ways of action (p. 73), a)
to remain neutral, b) to support the government of the other state
against the strifes for self-determination, c) to convince the
government of the other state to approach the self-determination
movement, d) to grant to the self-determination movement a certain
amount of recognition, e) to support territorial autonomy, or f) to
support secession combined with conditions imposed by the USA for the
recognition of the new state and of its government.
The
study recommends, that the USA even should not shy away from such
self-determination movements, which apply violence against a
suppressive government (p. 79), and that it was not necessary to
demand any proof, that the government has already resorted to
violence.
It
also says, that, for the purpose of prevention of civil wars, it
could be compelling to recognize secession movements as governments
and to lobby internationally for the recognition of their secession
(p. 80).
Regarding
the support to states coming into existence, the study recommends to
differentiate, if one recognizes the new state and its governments,
or, in a first step, only one of the both (p. 83). It recommends as
criteria for the recognition of a new state (p. 84-93) the UN
admissibility criteria, if the leaders of the new state promise
adherence to the international law, respect for the inviolability of
state borders, relinquishment of use of force contrary to
international law, peaceful settlement of arguments, constitutional
democracy, right to a differing political opinion, protection for the
rights of individuals and of minorities, limits to police
arbitrariness, market-oriented economy, and subjugation under an
enforcement mechanism. The study imaginates the latter in the way,
that the new state authorizes the UN Security Council or a regional
organization to militarily intervene into the new state, if it does
not comply with the above-mentioned recognition critieria recommended
by that think tank, and to perhaps be entitled to occupy the new
state up to 5 years in order to enforce the criteria (p. 91).
It
regards as methods of intervention (p. 96) surveillance, diplomatical
pressure, refusal of international legitimacy (according to p.
101+102 incl. exclusion or suspension of the membership of the
respective country in international organizations, as well as refusal
of recognition of the government and instead recognition of a rival
government), conditionality in the development aid, economic
sanctions, and military interventions.
The
study regards as reasons for military interventions (p. 105-111) the
prevention of an armed conflict (e. g. for the protection of
minorities or for the deterrence against external attacks against a
new state), violent enforcement of humanitarian relief to civil
populations under siege (according to the to the assessment at p. 107
of the study the in future possibly most common purpose of collective
military interventions into internal conflicts of any kind !),
defence of a new state, support to the self-determination movement,
enforcement of the compliance with the criteria for the recognition
of the new state (on the basis of the consent demanded before the
recognition, p. 110), and the defence of the existing government.
Regarding
the behaviour towards international organizations, the study
recommends (p. 80):
„The
United States should seek to build a consensus with regional and
international organizations for its position, but should not
sacrifice its own judgment and principles if such a consensus fails
to materialize. Nonetheless, there should be heavy presumption
against any physical intervention in support of a self-determination
movement or to assist a government in suppressing such a movement
unless U.S. Actions are pursuant to a decision of the U.N. Security
Council or an appropriate regional body.“
That
means, that the study wants, if possible the involvement of the UN
Security Council, but if it does not consent, also wants, as if that
was a matter of course, its circumvention by „regional“
organizations (EU, NATO etc.), only just no national solo efforts if
possible.
The
study postulates in view of the discontinuation (of the balance of
power) of the Cold War the following claim of power (p. 71):
„The
clear principles that guided the confrontation with the Soviet Union
have expired, and it is no longer possible to hold that all existing
states should remain united and that no changes in international
borders should be contemplated.“
The
authors of the study have been aware, that parts of their concept are
illegal under international law (p. 72, „It is inevitable that the
process of self-determination will at times overreach established
international law“), but they want, while violating hitherto
international law, to let it become new customary international law
by means of its application (p. 72, „Some of the principles we
discuss in this book are intended to push the outer envelope of
international law“). Thus the study recommends always to try „to
start with the full package“ (p. 72).
Regarding
the prohibition of aggressive war (art. 2 par. 4 UN Charter) and
regarding the prohibiton of the interference into inner affairs of
other states (art. 2 par. 7 UN Charter), the study says (p. 111),
that it does not
recommend the abolition of
these prescriptions. That is true, but the study aims at undermining
them, at weakening them, at circumventing them, at regarding
something else as higher-ranking. Thus it regards (p. 111) „American
interests in the new world order, including the humanitarian
imperatives of so many distant conflicts“, whereas humanitarian
imperatives are named as an example, as more important than the
compliance with art. 2 par. 4+7 UN Charter. And the study recommends
to reach an international consensus (also at UN level) for this
purpose, but it does not regard such a consensus as necessary (p.
111).
The
study demands (p. 117), that there shall be more considerations at
the US level how to orderly organize the new foreign policy plans,
e. g. regarding the spread of self-determination movements and
regarding the conflicts erupting all over the world.
The
study does not say, how that shall work, but one can see it today at
„colour revolution“ and at the National Endowment for Democracy.
Difference
between „humanitarian intervention“ and responsibility to protect
The
concept of „responsibility to protect“ has been concluded
unanimously as a resolution by the UN General Assembly at the World
Summit 2005 (no. 138-140 of the results of the World Summit 2005).
The resolution is binding because of its unanimous conclusion. It
contains, that interventions into the sovereignty of the states (art.
2 par. 1 UN Charter) are allowed in order to stop or to prevent
crimes contained in the Roman Statute of the ICC (war crimes, crimes
against humanity, genocide). The focus of the responsibility to
protect is on the prevention by peaceful means (no. 25 of the report
by the UN General Secretary on the responsibility to protect of the
28.06.2011,
file number. A/65/877-S/2011/393), no. 37 of his report of the
25.07.2012, file number A/66/874-S/2012/578), and no. 75 of his
report of the 09.07.2013,
file number A/67/929-S/2013/399). Military
measures may only be the last resort and may only be concluded by the
UN Security Council. The responsibility to protect strengthens the UN
Security Council, since it now can enable military interventions also
against genocide and against crime against humanity. Other crimes
than those included in the Roman Statute and mere human rights
violations are no cases for the responsibility to protect. Since the
UN Charter is the highest international treaty (art. 103 UN Charter),
to also all organs of the UN including the UN Security Council and
the UN General Assembly are bound, the responsibility to protect may
be applied only as far as it is compatible with the UN Charter,
particularly to art. 2 par. 4 UN Charter. In this sense, the
responsibility to protect is compatible with the UN Charter.
The
concept of the „humanitarian intervention“, in contrast to that,
has been created in order to circumvene the prohibition of aggressive
war (art. 2 par. 4 UN Charter) and the UN Security Council (chapter
VII UN Charter), the latter in the way to conclude military
interventions into other states also at the level of regional
organizations. The lowest treshold of the „humanitarian
intervention“ is to already do a preventive military intervention
in the case of the existence of the danger of the emergence of a
violent conflict between a state and a minority there. A
„humanitarian intervention“ is also impending, if a state applies
violence against a self-determination movement, even if the
respective self-determination movement has been the first to resort
to violence, and if the respective state only defends itself in order
to protect its order and its population.
The
„humanitärian intervention“ aims at splitting states, and the
loss of the balance of power with an evenly matched opponent Soviet
Union, which could have helped the states targeted for a
„humanitarian intervention“, has discernibly been a reason for
the creation of the concept. Also the further military occupation of
the new states, which have come into existence by the partitions,
belongs to the ideology of the „humanitarian intervention.“
The
reference to „values“ and „Iiterests“ for combat deployments
has several functions. It disattracts the attention from the material
legal bases for lawful combat deployments (individual right to
self-defence, collektive right to self-defence within the scope of
organizations of mutual collective security, mandate by the UN
Security Council, and permission by the government of the host
country). It also disattracts the attention from questions regarding
penalty law in connection with aggressive wars. And it disattracts
the attention from the preeminence of the UN Charter before the
universal human rights (art. 103 UN Charter, art. 29 no. 3 UDHR) and
from the prohibition of the abuse of the universal human rights
against the order of the universal human rights (art. 30 UDHR, art. 5
UN Civil Pact, art. 5 UN Social Pact); the preeminence of the UN
Charter before the universal human rights has the very sense, that
the main goal, for which the UN exists, is the preservation of peace,
particularly of world peace.
The
„humanitarian interventions“ already react to human rights
violations, at a much lower treshold than to militarily armed attacks
and also than genocide or crime against humanity (in contrast to the
unanimous resolution by the UN General Assembly of the year 2005,
which allows „responsibility to protect“ combat deployments only
with authorization by the UN Security Council). At the formal level,
it aims at war deployments also with regional alliances or with ad
hoc alliances, if the UN Security Council does not want to consent to
the intended deployment. That the „humanitarian interventions“
for „values“ and „interests“ are intended to be combat
deployments circumventing the UN Security Council, is the decisive
formal difference in contrast also to the responsibilty to protect.
Prescriptons
for the „humanitarian intervention“ as existential legal threat
to the European Union
In
contrast to the responsibility to protect, the „humanitarian
intervention“ is incompatible with the UN Charter. Art. 42 par. 5
TEU allows combat deployments for the „values“ and for the
„interests“ of the EU. The values of the EU are, roughly said,
human rights, democracy, and rule of the law (art. 2 TEU). So this
prescription allows combat deployments in all countries of the world,
because there is no country without any human rights violations. And,
at the same time, the EU claims, that the EU law is even above the
national constitutions of its member states (art. 1 TEU, art. 51 TEU,
declaration 17 to TEU and TFEU) and so even more above the UN
Charter. The UN Charter, in contrast to that, regards itself as the
highest international treaty (art. 103 UN Charter), also above the EU
law, and, at the same time, below the national constitutions, because
the UN is bound to the sovereignty of the states (art. 2 par. 1 UN
Charter). Art. 2 par. 4 UN Charter contains the prohibition of
aggressive war, which is binding for all states.
So
as a result, the EU contends, that its prescription for combat
deployments for „values“ and „interests“ (art. 42 par. 5 TEU)
alias for „humanitarian interventions“ is above the prohibition
of aggressive war of the UN (art. 2 par. 4 UN Charter); that
contention stands in an incompatible contrast to the UN Charter.
According
to art. 53 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT),
international treaties are void and thus inoperative, if they contain
prescriptions, which are incompatible with „ius cogens“ – The
voidness hits the whole treaty, not only the respective incompatible
prescription. The UN Charter belongs to the „ius cogens“ (art. 30
VCLT, art. 103 UN Charter).
Since
the existence of the European Union is enshrined in art. 1 TEU, a
voidness of the TEU means, at the same time, also the legal end of
the existence of the European Union.
The
solution for the benefit of peace and of the EU is the binding
restriction of the implementation of art. 42 par. 5 TEU in conformity
to the UN Charter in the way, that it must not be used for the
circumvention of the prohibition of aggressive war (art. 2 par. 4 UN
Charter).
The
Lisbon judgement of the 30.06.2009 has, for some time, defused the
danger arising from art. 42 par. 5 TEU for peace and for the legal
existence of the EU insofar (no. 255+342+390), as it has prohibited
the supranationalization of the prescriptions of the TEU EUV
regarding the Common Foreign and Safety Policy (CFSP). It has,
however, not explained, that this means in particular, that the
prescriptions of the CFSP (incl. art. 42 par. 5 TEU) have only a rank
of normal international law below the UN Charter, thus they may only
be applied as far as this is incompatible with the prohibition of
aggressive war (art. 2 par. 4 UN Charter).
The
think tank European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR), which has
been created in 2007 and is financed particularly by the billionaire
George Soros, regards itself as the „first paneuropean think tank“
and wants, according to its own statement, to improve the debate
regarding a „foreign policy based on European values“ (p. 156-158
of „Die Denkfabriken“, William Engdahl, Kopp publishing house).
That
art. 42 par. 5 TEU corresponds to the ideology of the „humanitarian
intervention“, is also shown by the guest article by Joschka
Fischer (ECFR) in the newspaper „Die Welt“ „EU: Höchste Zeit
für eine Stärkung der gemeinsamen Außenpolitik“ („EU: high
time for a strengthening of the common foreign policy“) of the
01.10.2007, in which he has said, inter alia:
„Nachdem
nun bald mit einem Abkommen über eine neue außenpolitische Struktur
zu rechnen ist, wird es für die EU auch höchste Zeit, eine
gemeinsame europäische Außen-politik zu konzipieren, die alle
Möglichkeiten europäischer Macht in Betracht zieht, um die Werte
und Interessen Europas auf der Welt zu fördern“.
(„Since
we now can expect soon a treaty regarding a new structure regarding
foreign policy, it is high time for the EU to develop a joint
European foreign policy, which consideres all possibilities of
European power in order to promote the values and interests of Europe
in the world“.)
The
European Council has in 2016, also in order to alleviate the legal
collision, concluded a new EU Safety Strategy, which, in contrast to
its predecessor of the year 2003, primarily resorts to diplomacy.
Nevertheless,
art. 42 par. 5 TEU is still contained in the EU law. So the EU should
distance itself from such appeals like the one of the 21.08.2018 of
its members Great Britain and France together with the USA .
The
ideology of the „humanitarian intervention“ and Syria
According
to the book author Diana Johnstone, the model of interventions for
„values“ and „interests“ has been applied during the
presidency of His Excellency, US President Barack Obama, respectively
„mit Frauen an der Spitze“ („with women at the top“) „auf
Libyen, Syrien und die Ukraine“ („on Libya, Syria, and Ukraine“)
(p. 95+96, „Die Chaos-Königin“, Westend publishing house).
One
of the biggest escalation risks fo the Syria conflict has been the
propaganda regarding „no-fly zones“ in Syria in view of civil
victims of deployments of the Syrian air force against jihadists.
According
to the WSWS article „German government aids anti-Assad forces in
Syria“ of the 21.08. 2012, Joschka Fischer (ECFR) has recommended
a „no-fly zone“ for Syria with the argument, that a humanitarian
catastrophe war impending.
According
to Dr. Tim Anderson, i. a., the White Helmets strife for, a no-fly
zone in Syria (p. 121+140+186 , „Der schmutzige Krieg in Syrien“,
Dr. Tim Anderson, Liepsen publishing house). The White Helmets have
been founded by James le Mesurier, a former British soldier and
mercenary of the Olive Group, amd been financed presumably, i. a.,
with 23 millions by USAID and by the British government (p.
140+141).
In
a video of the White Helmets on the on the effects of an air raid by
the Syrian army in 2015 on Duma, a part of Damascus, which had at
that time been occupied for more than 3 years by Al Nusra Front and
by Islamic Front, only men in military able age can be seen between
rescue people with jackets of the White Helmets. The Arabic title of
the video ist „burning martyrs“ (p. 142).
In
a video on a presumed chlor gas attack, the logo of the White Helmets
as well as later the loge of the Al Nusra Front appear (p. 143+144).
And
in other videos, there are White Helmets carrying away corpses of
people just executed by the Al Nusra Front (p. 144).
Also
the papers „Deconstructing
Syria – Towards a regionalized strategy for a confederal
country“
by the think tank Brookings Institution of June 2015, „Defeating
the Islamic State – A Bottom-Up Approach“ by the think tank CNAS
of June 2016, and the article published at the 11.05.2017 in the
magazine „Foreign Affairs“ of the think tanks Council on Foreign
Relations „The Right Way to Create Safe Zones in Syria“ demand
such no-fly zones in Syria, even though they call „no-bombing
zones“ (CNAS) respectively „safe zones“ (Brookings Institution
and CFR).
How
ever one calls such zones, it leads finally to immediate clashes
between Western und Russian troops.
All
these different campaigns follow the ideology of the „humanitarian
intervention“, in the way that they, as if that was a matter of
cause, demand combat deployments circumventing the UN Security
Council and the prohibition of aggressive war (art. 2 par. 4 UN
Charter) already in cases of grave human rights violations and of
crimes under the Roman Statute, instead of resorting to the procedure
of presenting those cases to the International Criminal Court.
And
since the ideology of the „humanitarian intervention“ is quite
arbitrary, if the military intervention takes place on the side of
the government or of the armed opposition, it is nearly no wonder,
that one does not wait, until it is proven, who is guilty at all, and
that the losses of human lives of civilians caused by bombardements
in Syria and Iraq have only been one-sidedly taken into
consideration.
Chemical
weapon deployments against the Syrian civil population, however, have
turned out to be most dangerous to world peace. And the danger is
again growing rapidly.
The
actually increasing escalation risk by means of a presumably imminent
false flag chemical weapon attack
At
the 21.08.2018, exactly 5 years after the chemical weapon incident at
Ghouta of the 21.08.2013, which had, for the first time, led the
Syria conflict very close to the escalation to nuclear war, the
nuclear powers USA, Great Britain, and France have remembered in a
joint statement the then crime, which they still attribute to the
Syrian government.
In
their statement, they also claim, that they, as they have shown,
„will respond appropriately to any further use of chemical weapons
by the Syrian regime“.
According
to the Sputniknews article „Weißhelme bringen Giftsubstanzen in
Terroristen-Lager in Idlib – Russland“ of the 26.08.2018, the
jihadist propaganda organization „White Helmets“ has, according
to knowledge of the Russian Reconciliation Centre, which refers to
several independent sources, brought with two trucks a big amount of
toxic substances to a warehouse under the control of the terror
organization Ahrar al-Sham, which is situated in Saraqib in the
province Idlib. From there, they have been transported without
labelling to the South of Idlib.
The
Russian Ministry of Defence estimates, that a chemical weapon attack
is going to be perpetrated by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (Al Qaida in
Syria), which these terrorists would than attribute to the Syrian
government, in order to provoke new airstrikes by USA, Great Britain,
and France against Syria. The USA have, at the 25.08.2018, deployed a
destroyer with 28 cruise missiles to the Mediterranean Sea, a
further ship with 56 cruise missiles to the Persian Gulf, and a
strategical bomber to Qatar. Syria has put its air defence on alert
(Sputniknews article „Syrische Luftabwehr in höchste
Gefechtsbereitschaft versetzt – Medien“ of the 27.08.2018).
According
to the Southfront article „Foreign Specialists arrived in Syria to
stage chemical attack: Russian Defense Ministry“ of the 26.08.2018,
the Russian Defence Ministry has expressed the presumption, that a
chemical weapon attack might already take place within the following
48 hours. The article names as possible scenes the settlement Hbit
(according to information avaible to the Russian Reconciliation
Center in Syria) or Kafr Zita (according to information available to
the Russian Defence Ministry).
Even
if the Syrian army further delays its planned offensive against the
jihadists in Idlib, since a false flag chemical weapon attack could
logically not be attributed to it without its involvement in any
combat actions in the region, that szenario could also come about
very fast by the fact, that thousands of militants with armored
vehicles have gathered at the weekend of the 25.+26.08.2018, in order
to attack positions of the government troops in the North of Hama and
in the South-West of Aleppo (Southfront article „US brings more
cruise missile carriers to Middle East, Syrian air defense prepare to
repel strikes“ of the 27.08.2018).
The
national security advisor of the USA, John Bolton, has already at the
22.08.2018 threatened with a „very strong“ answer, if the Syrian
government deployed chemical weapons. The Russian Defence Ministry
estimates, that the chemical weapon incident, which is presumably in
preparation, is going to be used as a pretext for air attacks by USA,
Great Britain, and France on Syrian government targets.
See
the articles by Global Research of the 26.08.2018 and by the Deutsche
Welle of the 25.08.2018.
According
to the Sputniknews article „Befreiungsschlag von Idlib: Auf
Washingtons Provokation folgt Moskaus Überraschung“ of the
28.08.2018, Russia has estimated, that now within five days the
shooting of the film with a new chemical weapon attack might take
place. In addition to that, Russia now has 14 ships and 2 submarines
in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea and is significantly strengthening
the Syrian air defence.
According
to the Farsnews article „White Helmets' Cargo Transferred to
Terrorists' Warehouse in Idlib“ of the 29.08.2018, the TV channel
of al-Mayadeen in Arabic language has reported, that, according to
informed sources, more than 250 members of the White Helmets are
preparing for a staged rescue action after a staged chemical weapon
attack.
According
to the RT article and video „Syrien: Planen Terror-Helme einen
inszenierten Chemiewaffenangriff?“ of the 29.08.2018, the risk of
an international escalation is very high, if a chemical weapon attack
attributed to the Syrian government takes place. At least, USA and
Russia are discussing with each other, how a chemical weapon attack
can be prevented. In the UN Security Council, Her Excellency, the
British Ambassador to the UN, Mrs. Karen Pierce, doubts, if Syria
really does not have any chemical weapons any more, and has expressed
the presumption, that Russia with its alleged pieces of information
only attempts to determine in advance the narrative for the case,
that such an attack takes place.
According
to the Parstoday arcticle „USA erstellen Angriffsliste für Ziele
in Syrien“ of the 01.09.2018, the USA have made a provisional
list, which places in Syria they want to promptly attack in case of
a chemical weapon attack by the Syrian government. The plan for an
attack on Syria has, according to the article, not yet been decided.
According to the estimation by Parstoday, however, already several
„propaganda trains“ have been started within the most recent days
by Western media in order to prepare the world public for an attack
of the USA against Syria.
The
world has, in Syria, already several times stood beforte a global
escalation
The
allusion by Their Excellencies, the heads of government of the USA
(Donald Trump), of Great Britain (Theresa May), and of France
(Emmanuel Macron) of the 21.08.2018, that they have shown, that they
„will respond appropriately“, refers to their air attacks on
Syria of the 13.04.2018.
Macabrily,
the world has been short before a global escalation in the beginning
of the respective week in April 2018. That time, the White Helmets
have only faked a chemical weapons incident at Douma (Easterm
Ghouta), as the later statement by Hassan Diab, a boy who had been
instrumentalized for the propaganda video, which was intended to show
alleged toxic gas victims. The troops of the USA, of Russia, and of
Syria on Syrian territory as well as the Iranian air defence have
been put on alert that time. The diplomatical channels with Russia
had already been reduced because of the Skripal case. Russia had
threatened with retaliation against US ships in case of US air
attacks on the Syrian governmental quarter or on Russian troops.
China had put its fleet in the Mediterranean Sea under Russian
command. Still in time the US forces have, at that time, according to
the magazine Der Spiegel, informed Russia (without disclosure of
targets) before the air attacks of the 13.04.2018 by USA, Great
Britain, and France, in order to hit no Russian soldiers.
Also
within the time from June until the first week of July 2017, the
Syria conflict threatened to acutely escalate even at several scenes.
The USA had, at that time, several times fired at troops of Shiites
respectively at Syrian government troops, which were approaching the
area of Al-Tanf occupied by the USA in the South-East of Syria. The
USA had downed a Syrian jet, which presumably had erroneously bombed
Kurdish troops; as a reaction to that, Russia had suspended the
communication with the USA for the prevention of direct clashes in
the Syrian airspace. Saudi-Arabia threatened at that time, to attack
Russian troops ni Syria, if Russia continued its „chaotic“
bombardements (Sputniknews article of the 27.06.2017 „Syrien-Konflikt
in neues Stadium: Wer gegen wen?“). The USA threatened in June 2017
towards Syria, Russia, and Iran for the case of further chemical
weapons incidents; Russia and Syria expressed concrete presumptions
at that time, where in Syria jihadists were preparing such incidents.
The USA deployed, in the end of June 2017, two aircraft carriers
before the coast of Syria, in order to underpin their threat.
In
February 2016, Saudi-Arabia wanted to use an ad-hoc alliance with
many other Sunni countries, which has been created for the fight
against Isis, to invade into Syria and Iraq. Saudi-Arabia requested
NATO for support, but NATO refused, so that the world war did not
take place in February 2016.
The
escalation up to nuclear war has been prevented very narrowly at the
31.08.2013. After the chemical weapon attack at Ghouta of the
21.08.2013, the USA have rashly accused Syria to be the perpetrator,
even though there have also been pieces of evidence available for
everyone in the internet, which pointed to different groups of
jihadists. The air strikes by the USA were going to start at the
01.09.2013 or at the 02.09.2013. While, according to the AFP ticker,
in the morning, all preparations for that were going on, the attacks
were cancelled in the afternoon American time of the 31.08.2013. As
the Deutschen Wirtschaftsnachrichten exposed at the 01.09.2013, the
reason was, that the US General Staff had detected at the 31.08.2013,
that the USA had no „exit strategy“ (from the spiral of
escalation). It has been of crucial importance for the very close
prevention of the global escalation at that time, that the US General
Staff has got to know at the 31.08.2013 just in time, that Russia had
already prepared its airforce for attacks on Saudi-Arabia as
retaliation for the expected US airstrikes on Syria; these news,
which had been published at the 27.08.2013 in the EU Times and at the
29.08.2013 in the Business Insider and in Mintpressnews, have reached
the US think tank Council on Foreign Relations at the 31.08.2013; the
CFR had, at the 26.08.2013, made a statement with the optimistic
assessment, that the escalation regarding the planned US airstrikes
could be limited. Later, the CFR exposed, that in the end of August
2013, an army of 50,000 mercenaries provided by Saudi-Arabia, had
waited on Jordan territory for the command for to deploy them against
Syria.
All
these nearly-escalations have only been possible because of the
ideology of the „humanitarian intervention“.
Since
the German Constitutional Court, for what reasons soever, did not
want to take up our admissable and well-grounded constitutional
complaints of the 17.03.2016 (2 BvR 576/16), of the 18.10.2016 (2 BvR
2174/16), and of the 17.06.2017 (2 BvR 1400/17), now the world
community is needed to bring the „humanitarian intervention“
before the International Court of Justice at The Hague.
It
is high time to expose the ideology of the „humanitarian
intervention“ as what it is:
A
strategy for the systematical circumvention of the prohibition of
aggressive war and of the UN Security Council, and thus a danger to
world peace, as well as to the systems of the United Nations
regarding peace, regarding human rights, and regarding criminal law.
We
need a stable world peace and legal certainty. The International
Court of Justice has to serve for the strengthening of the UN
Charter and for the outlawing of the „humanitarian intervention“.
The
hitherto nearly-escalations of the Syria conflict contain enough
material for the achievement of the necessary simple majority in the
UN General Assembly for commissioning the ICJ.
Which
states have the courage to finally aplly in the UN General Assembly
for an ICJ advisory opinion on this?
V.i.S.d.P.:
Sarah Luzia Hassel-Reusing, Thorner Str. 7, 42283 Wuppertal (Germany)
Sources
regarding the actually significantly increased escalation risk, which
can get acute at any time
joint
statement by USA, Great Britain, and France of the 21.08.2018
Sputniknews
article „Weißhelme bringen Giftsubstanzen in Terroristen-Lager in
Idlib – Russland“ of the 26.08.2018
Sputniknews
article „Syrische Luftabwehr in höchste Gefechtsbereitschaft
versetzt – Medien“ of the 27.08.2018
Southfront
article „US brings more cruise missile carriers to Middle East,
Syrian air defense prepare to repel strikes“ of the 27.08.2018
Southfront
article „Foreign Specialists arrived in Syria to stage chemical
attack: Russian Defense Ministry“ of the 26.08.2018
article
by Global Research of the 26.08.2018 and by the Deutsche Welle of the
25.08.2018
Sputniknews
article „Befreiungsschlag von Idlib: Auf Washingtons Provokation
folgt Moskaus Überraschung“ of the 28.08.2018
Farsnews
article „White Helmets' Cargo Transferred to Terrorists' Warehouse
in Idlib“ of the 29.08.2018
RT
article and video „Syrien: Planen Terror-Helme einen inszenierten
Chemiewaffenangriff?“ of the 29.08.2018
Parstoday
article „USA erstellen Angriffsliste für Ziele in Syrien“ of the
01.09.2018
Sources
regarding the nearly-escalation in April 2018
RT
Deutsch article of the 19.04.2018 „Giftgas in Duma“: Aussagen
eines Teilnehmers im „Beweisvideo sprechen für Fälschung“
Spiegel
article „Was über die Luftangriffe gegen Syrien bisher bekannt
ist“ of the 14.04.2018
articles
by the Rosskijskaja Gazeta and by Russkaja Wesna of the 10.04.2018
regarding the subordination of the Chinese fleet in the Mediterranean
Sea under Russian command for the case of a bigger attack on Syria
and regarding the request by Russia to Iran to use Iranian airfields
for Russian fighter jets and strategic bombers
Reseau
International article „Des navires de guerre chinois en
Méditerranée reçoivent l’ordre de rallier la marine russe en cas
d’une attaque massive contre la Syrie “ of the 10.04.2018
Sputniknews
article „USA verlegen Einsatzgruppe mit Flugzeugträger ins
Mittelmeer“ of the 10.04.2018
Southfront
article „MACRON: ANY FRENCH STRIKES WILL TARGET ASSAD’S
CHEMICAL
WEAPONS STOCKS“ of the 10.04.2018
Global
Resarch article „Breaking: Russian Forces in Syria Are on Combat
Alert: U.S. Considers Attacks Directed against Syrian Government
Forces“ of the 08.04.2018
Tagesschau
article „US-Drohung alarmiert syrische Armee“ of the 10.04.2018
RT
Deutsch article „Trump: Es geht um Humanität- Werden in 24 bis 48
Stunden auf
Giftgasangriff
in Syrien antworten“ of the 10.04.2018
Sputniknews
article „Trump verliert Putins Respekt“ of the 27.03.2018
Schweizer
Morgenpost article „Giftbefehl von Theresa May?“ of the
27.03.2018
CFR
article „Russia's Poisonous Message to the World“ of the
23.03.2018
CSIS
article „Russian Media responds to Poisonous Attack on Former Spy
with Conspiracy Theories“ of the 13.03.2018
Sputniknews
article „Enthauptungsschlag gegen Damaskus: Russland gibt Kontra –
USA lenken um“ of the 26.03.2018
Southfront
article „U.S.
DEPLOYS NAVAL STRIKE GROUPS FOR ATTACKS ON SYRIA, TRAINS MILITANTS
FOR FALSE FLAG CHEMICAL ATTACKS“ of the 17.03.2018 regarding the
strengthening of the US naval presence before Syria for airstrikes in
the case of chemical weapon deployments, and regarding the
presumptions of general Sergey Rudskoi (Russian General Staff) about
presumably planned chemical weapon deployments by the FSA in Deraa
and by the Al-Nusra Front in Idlib
threat
by Her Excellency, US Ambassador to the United Nations, Mrs. Nikki
Haley, of the 12.03.2018 with US attacks on Syrian government targets
in the case of chemical weapon deployments according to Southfront
article „SYRIAN
WAR REPORT – MARCH 13, 2018: US OFFICIALLY THREATENS TO STRIKE
SYRIAN ARMY“
of the 13.03.2018
https://southfront.org/syrian-war-report-march-13-2018-us-officially-threatens-to-strike-syrianarmy/
threat
by the Russian General Staff with retaliation for the case of US
attacks on the Syrian governmental quarter or on Russian troops in
Syria, according to Sputniknews article „Russlands Generalstab
warnt USA: Bei Angriff auf Damaskus wird zurückgeschossen“ of the
14.03.2018
Sputniknews
article „Syrien: US-Instrukteure bereiten Kämpfer für
Provokationen mit C-Waffen vor“ of the 17.03.2018
Voltairenet
article of the 14.03.2018 „Zwei
Labors von Chemiewaffen entdeckt bei den syrischen moderaten
Rebellen"“
Voltairenet
article „Das Vereinigte Königreich versucht drei chemische
Angriffe unter falscher Flagge“ of the 21.03.2018
Voltairenet
article „Vier Tage, um einen kalten Krieg zu erklären“ of the
21.03.2018
Sputniknews
article „Syrische Regierung: Chemiewaffenangriff in Idlib in
Vorbereitung“ of the 27.03.2018
Questions
regarding nearly-escalation June/July 2017
threatening
escalation between USA and Syria nearAl-Tanf in June 2017
http://21stcenturywire.com/2017/05/20/us-coalition-attacks-syrian-forces-helping-isis-in-theprocess/
threatening
escalation between USA and Russia after downing of a Syrian jet by
the USA as an answer to presumed Syrian bombardement against Kurds in
Raqqa in June 2017
https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/201706231054924514-russia-us-coalition-syria-deconflictionkalibr/
threats
by Saudi-Arabia against Russia in June 2017
threats
by USA against Syria, Russia, and Iran for the case of furthre
chemical weapon incidents in June 2017
Russian
and Syrian presumptions regarding preparations by jihadists for the
deployment of chemical weapons
deployment
of 2 US aircraft carriers before the Syrian coast for the case of
chemical weapon deployments by the Syrian army – according to
Sputniknews article „Bereit zum Angriff – USA stationieren
Schiffe und Flugzeuge bei Syrien“ of the 29.06.2017 (referring to
CNN)
Sources
regarding the nearly-escalation in February 2016:
training
of 150.000 soldiers from several Sunni countries in Saudi-Arabia for
a possible intervention into Syria according tot the articles of the
06.02.2016 by Veterans Today („Iran: 150,000 Saudi Mercenaries
Ready to Enter Syria“, referring to Fars News Agency) and by
Sputniknews (article „Saudi-Arabien plant Syrien-Bodenoffensive:
Warten 150.000 Soldaten auf US-Befehl?“)
NATO
refused, at its summit of the 08.02.2016, to deploy ground forces for
the support of a possible Saudi-led intervention into Syria
(according to Tagesspiegel article „Russland warnt USA vor
'Weltkrieg' “ of the 12.02.2016)
Sources
regarding the, at the 31.08.2013, very narrowly prevented world war
EU
Times article of the 27.08.2013 regarding the retaliation threat by
Russia and regarding respective preparation
Tagesschau
article „Auf keinen Fall wie Bush“ of the 28.08.2013 (with
presumed begin of the US airstrikes on Syria between 29.08.2013 and
01.09.2013)
Standard
article „Putin fordert Verzicht auf Angriff gegen Syrien“ of the
31.08.2013 (with presumed begin possible at any time)
taz
article „USA können ohne London losschlagen“ of the 31.08.2013
(with presumed begin short time after the departure of the UN
inspectors)
Deutsche
Wirtschaftsnachrichten article of the 01.09.2013 „Historische
Blamage: Meuterei der US-Militärs zwang Obama zum Rückzug“
(proves, that there has been no strategy at that time for the exit
from the spiral of escalatoin („exit strategy“)
Voltairenet
article „Laut Foreign Policy würde Saudi-Arabien einen Angriff auf
Syrien
vorbereiten“
of the 08.11.2013 (more than 50,000 mercenaries waiting in Jordan,
available to be used by Saudi-Arabia to attack Syria in September
2013)
Sputniknews
article „Russland schützte Syrien vor massivem
NATO-Raketenangriff“ of the
15.08.2016
(regarding the Russian assessment of the size of the airstrikes on
Syria, which had been planned by the USA for September 2013)
regarding
the training of jihadists with chemical weapons detected already in
2012:
Global
Research article by Prof. Dr. Michel Chossudovsky „The Syria
Chemical-Weapons Saga: The Staging of a US-NATO Sponsored
Humanitarian Desaster“ of the 12.12.2012 (on the Western training
for jihadists how to handle chemical weapons)
Constitutional
complaints regarding the Syria deployment
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen
Hinweis: Nur ein Mitglied dieses Blogs kann Kommentare posten.