Sendereihe: "Macht und Menschenrechte" ( Unser Politikblog TV) November - dann in anderem Format

Samstag, 8. September 2018

Again increasing risk of escalation to nuclear war in Syria - „humanitarian intervention“ must be tried at The Hague !


(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

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

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

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 posten

Hinweis: Nur ein Mitglied dieses Blogs kann Kommentare posten.