On May 15th, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution condemning the ongoing violence in Syria. The Resolution was voted on one day after High Commissioner for Human Rights Navy Pillay had publicly denounced the latest horrific act committed by anti-government rebel forces in Syria: a video had appeared on the internet, showing a rebel leader cutting out and biting the heart of a dead soldier. Did the text of the resolution contain any condemnation of similar, countless acts committed by armed rebels, such as the gruesome murder and decapitation of Sheikh Hassan Seifeddin, imam of a mosque in northern Aleppo, on March 30th, who was abducted from his house, filmed, paraded around, then murdered and beheaded – all of which amount to a war crime? Or perhaps the hanging of 10 year old Mulham Masoud and his father Saeed, whose bodies the Free Syrian Army stuffed in the trunk of their own car on April 14thOr the kidnapping of Christian Bishops and spiritual leaders Paulos Yazigi and Youhana Ibrahim on April 22nd?
No. Not a word. Some interesting points in the opening paragraphs highlight “grave concern at the threat by the Syrian authorities to use chemical or biological weapons and at allegations of reported use of such weapons”. Interesting because, a little more than a week before, on May 6th, Syria Commission of Inquiry member Carla del Ponte had in fact stated that, according to the Commission’s investigations, it was in fact the rebels who had made use of nerve gas, while there was no evidence whatsoever of the Syrian government’s use of chemical weapons.
In the resolution, there was also stress to “strong commitment to the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic and to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations”; now, to recap: the so-called “international community”, i.e. any state which does not stand in the way of U.S. foreign policies and interests, have been supporting a de facto government in exile, waiting to take power in Syria, the clunkily named “National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces”, which was approved and somehow designated as the “sole legitimate representative of the Syrian people” at their fourth Ministerial Meeting, held in Marrakech, Morocco. A coalition whose leadership has consistenly rejected any possible diplomatic solution. And an armed opposition which, aside from the atrocious acts we have just mentioned, has been capturing and holding Syrian territories captive, labelling them with the euphemistical term “liberated territories”. Now, how exactly does all this amount to strong commitment to the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic?
As already mentioned, stress is made on “strong commitment to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations”: the very same principles which Israel violated by twice carrying out airstrikes on Syrian sovereign territory, on the 3rd and the 5th of May. A flagrant violation of the principle of non-aggression, that is, if the wording of article 2 of the UN Charter still has any meaning: “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state”. Now, considering that the General Assembly resolution “Condemns all violence, irrespective of where it comes from”, and that the airstrikes took place 3 days before the final drafting of the resolution, and 10 full days before it was proposed at the General Assembly, you would think there would be a mention of them, somewhere in the text.
And you would be wrong: not a word.
So, to cut a long story short, while the condemnations are exclusively dished out against the Syrian regime, not a single word is uttered against the mass-murdering maniacs terrorising Syria in their single-minded effort to topple Bashar al-Assad, and the nations which have been arming them and funding them – officially – since August 2012. In fact, two days later, American diplomat and political expert James Jeffrey, speaking from the US State Department, had this to say to the BBC: “[There is a] geo-strategic necessity to bring this thing to and end, and the only way it can be brought to an end is [to put] pressure on Assad: it’s so clear that my hope is that – at the end of the day – with persuasion by [Turkish Prime Minister] Erdogan and by others, the president will act”. When asked exactly in what way did he hope the president would act, he candidly replied: “Well, there is potential arming of the insurgents”.
There you go.