Ambassador Rice Addresses the Veto of a UN Security Council Resolution on Syria

Posted by DipNote Bloggers
October 5, 2011

On October 4, 2011, Ambassador Susan E. Rice, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, spoke to reporters about the veto of a UN Security Council Resolution on Syria. Ambassador Rice said, "...This has been quite a sad day, most especially for the people of Syria, but also for this Security Council. The people of Syria, who seek nothing more than the opportunity to achieve their universal human rights and to see their aspirations for freedom and liberty achieved, have been slapped in the face by several members of this Security Council today."

Speaking to members of the Security Council as they addressed the situation in Syria earlier in the day, Ambassador Rice said:

"Madame President, the United States is outraged that this Council has utterly failed to address an urgent moral challenge and a growing threat to regional peace and security.

"Several members have sought for weeks to weaken and strip bare any text that would have defended the lives of innocent civilians from Asad's brutality. Today, two members have vetoed a vastly watered-down text that doesn't even mention sanctions.

"Let me be clear: the United States believes it is past time that this Council assume its responsibilities and impose tough, targeted sanctions and an arms embargo on the Asad regime, as we have done domestically.

"Yet today, the courageous people of Syria can now clearly see who on this Council supports their yearning for liberty and universal human rights -- and who does not. And during this season of change, the people of the Middle East can now see clearly which nations have chosen to ignore their calls for democracy and instead prop up desperate, cruel dictators. Those who oppose this resolution and give cover to a brutal regime will have to answer to the Syrian people -- and, indeed, to people across the region who are pursuing the same universal aspirations.

"The record is clear. For more than six months, the Asad regime has deliberately unleashed violence, torture, and persecution against peaceful protesters, human rights defenders, and their families. The High Commissioner for Human Rights has already warned that the Syrian government's appalling actions might amount to crimes against humanity. The Asad regime's crimes have won a chorus of condemnation from the region, including the Gulf Cooperation Council, which demanded an immediate end to what it called Asad's "killing machine." But this Council has not yet passed even a hortatory resolution to counter the Asad regime's brutal oppression.

"The arguments against strong Council action grow weaker and weaker by the day. Some on this Council argue that the Asad regime's abuses are not that egregious, or that the regime deserves more time for its so-called reforms. But as the UN's own reporting makes clear, the Syrian government's efforts to mask its continued atrocities are as transparent as its promises of reform are empty. Others claim that strong Security Council action on Syria would merely be a pretext for military intervention.

"Let there be no doubt: this is not about military intervention. This is not about Libya. That is a cheap ruse by those who would rather sell arms to the Syrian regime than stand with the Syrian people.

"This is about whether this Council, during a time of sweeping change in the Middle East, will stand with peaceful protestors crying out for freedom -- or with a regime of thugs with guns that tramples human dignity and human rights. As matters now stand, this Council will not even mandate the dispatch of human rights monitors to Syria -- a grave failure that may doom the prospects for peaceful protest in the face of a regime that knows no limits.

"In August, we clearly condemned the violence and made clear that the Syrian regime's repression is utterly unacceptable. Several of us on this Council and many throughout the international community have voiced our condemnation and imposed sanctions on the Asad regime. Regional organizations such as the League of Arab States, the Gulf Cooperation Council, and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation have urged the Syrian government to stop the bloodshed. But the Syrian government's reply has been an increase in the violence and repression. And some Council members have chosen to look the other way. We urge the governments that failed to support Council action to change course and heed the voices of the Syrian people. The Asad regime flatly refuses to meet its international obligations, including those laid out in this Council's August 3 Presidential Statement, and the international community must bring real consequences to bear.

"In failing to adopt the draft resolution before us, this Council has squandered an opportunity to shoulder its responsibilities to the Syrian people. We deeply regret that some members of the Council have prevented us from taking a principled stand against the Syrian regime's brutal oppression of its people. But the suffering citizens of Syria are watching today, and so is the entire Middle East. The crisis in Syria will stay before the Security Council, and we will not rest until this Council rises to meet its responsibilities."

You can Ambassador Rice's full remarks here.

Comments

Comments

Syrian P.
|
Syria
October 5, 2011

SNP in Syria writes:

Two financially solvent superpowers with great leadership in power, Russia and China delivered last night a sane response (Veto) to NATO insane mayhem and plunder in the Middle East. Closing shut NATO newest plot against another sovereign country, Syria.

The apparent NATO move on Syria is now for sure looking like a serious attempt at hijacking of Syria’s spring by foreign intelligence agencies and colonial interests using cheap puppets. It also shows that Israel who is the primary beneficiary of Syria NEOCON roll back plan, covered with cloaks’ of lies, deceits and the usual western inspired bloody genocidal violence, may be actually orchestrating this affair or using it for sinister murderous plan against Syrians.

So far NATO hired puppets tried sanctions, U.N. resolutions, tried bloody terrorism, even attempted genocide, used Gulf and Western media to launch antiquated silly media dog tricks to smear the Syrians and misrepresent the true intent of NATO push, but all came to miserable failure. Direct NATO attack is about the only option left for now, however an assured massive retaliatory strike by Syria’s loyal forces, Hezbollah and Iran will make that move very costly. Oil resources in the Middle East will be decimated, per barrel price could reach $250-300, Europe is teetering on the verge of economic and social collapse and the U.S. is already drowned in debt and unemployment, An attack on Syria could be the last nail in the coffin for Western Economies.

NATO handful of Syrian mercenaries and the large virtually created ones on online weblogs operated by various shady Intel agencies are already threatening to Increase terrorism inside Syria. Syrian Nationalist Party Chief Strategist stated that this is counterproductive for the colonial plotters; their hired and paid agents have neither control of the operation theater nor the audience. More violence means increasing prisoner numbers and their suffering, more negatives feeling among Syrian masses and likely outright rejection of the so called Syrian Revolution 2011. The problem that is not well understood by the attacking west is that all those NATO sponsored opposition to a Sovereign Syria have zero backing in Syria, are now totally discredited as colonial thugs and hired mercenaries for NATO colonial push into the Middle East. More than 88.9% of Syria’s Sunni Moslems have backed long time president of Syria Basher Assad. The entire class and minorities, including all Christian sects in Syria, have joined forces with majority Sunnis in repelling the latest NATO move on Syria disguised as a campaign to bring freedom and Democracy to the country.

Syria’s majority rebuffed the false call for democracy when it was discovered that NATO is using the extremist terrorist group the Moslem Brotherhood as a mean to divide the Country into sectarian ruled city States, establish a NATO base in eastern Syria called “Syria Islamic State” ruled my Moslem extremist loyal to NATO. It was also discovered that Turkey was promised a part of Syria that is rich in fossil fuel in northwest part of the country, the region called Idlib Province. Turkey in the past grabbed another part of Syria the Iskenderun Province when they conspired with France against Syria.

NATO attempt to use the same cookie cutter they used in Libya is what really brought their dead end strategy to collapse. In Libya, they used foreign mercenaries and CIA trained assets, the Al Qaida Islamic terrorists to horrify the native Libyan population with the most vicious genocidal campaign since the Balkan attacks. The attempt to use the same Moslem terrorist thugs and few treasonous Syrians to act as front have primarily lead to the crash of the seditious plan against Syria. Syrians are notorious Nationalists who abhor colonial plot after suffering from such for decades.

For NATO today, the Syria game plan is over. For Syrian Nationalists, it is time to pick up the pieces and continue the struggle to free Syria of Baathist rule and oppression. SNP Chie strategist says the work will be much harder now; Assad has managed to defeat NATO and is likely not to compromise with the legit Nationalist opposition on anything. The hijacking of the real struggle has failed, thanks in great part to the vision of great nations of China and Russia, both are lead by wise and great leaderships, but the work ahead is harder now and for the means left for us is to rely on the good office of Iran, China and Russia to bring solution to the crises in Syria.

Paul
|
New York, USA
October 5, 2011

Paul in New York writes:

I couldn't help but read that first paragraph substituting Palestine for Syria and Palestinians for Syrians.

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
October 6, 2011

Eric in New Mexico writes:

(reference 1)

Eric in New Mexico writes:

One thing Syria is not is that neither Ghandi nor Martin Luther King would have met with any lasting success in leading peaceful protest to bring change in the police-state envioronment Assad's family has created over the decades.

While the US State dept and I share admiration for the Syrian people's peaceful intent, and frankly an incredible amount of dicipline and patience in the face of thousands murdered by this abysmal regime; the regime is counting on no action taken by the rest of the international community to remove him from power via the use of force.

Granted the people would love to do this on their own for themselves, but the fact is only when the tools of war are taken away from dictators do they lose the capacity to make war on their people, and a level playing field is created for the people themselves to bring the change they seek.

The UNSC put caveats on the word "all" in the resolution on Libya stating "all neccessary measures" be taken to assure the protection of the civilian population and so Ghaddafi was not targeted to begin with.

Today we witness him "gone to ground" in a hidy hole somewhere and no one knows for sure whether he has access to the remaining blister agents and other WMD's left in Libya while he has vowed to fight to the death.

TNC has taken a page out of the history of our wild, wild West and offered 2 million reward for him "dead or alive" hoping those he trusts will turn him in and get the amnesty offered in return.

Hopefully he'll go out with a whinper, not a human tragedy brought on by the use of WMD's as his final act on this planet.

But with Asdsad and his regime, given the missles, the biologicals, and Russia's long-term relationship to that regime another solution altogether is rerquired of the international community to avert the concequences of a man who would rather be infamous and commit crimes against humanity rather than lead his nation to reform and a peaceful transition in the political arena.

The people of Syria generally do not wish to pick up arms to defend themselves and "legitimise" Assad's use of force upon them, I can understand the catch-22 that they find themselves in with the current situation as it stands today.

However, the killing will continue until acted upon by an outside force, in the same way Newtonian laws of motion apply to political change.

This nation of ours along with many nations has been in a declared war upon terrorists and extremists for a decade now, and the state sponsors, of which Syria is among them must be delt with in order to protect populations throughout the region as must Iran's destabilization of nations along with Syria's to achieve an envirionment that can allow for a lasting peace and ultimately a two-state solution to be achived through negotiation between Palestinians and Israelis.

Russia bears a huge karmic responsibility having sold tanks and weaponry to Assad's regime and faces a clear choice as to whether to remain part of the problem or become the proactive key to its resolution in partnership with all nations condeming Assad's warmaking upon his people.

So far, they are failing to meet their "responsibility to protect" and that bodes ill for any potential peaceful resolution to the Syrian crisis.

As NATO's mission in Libya winds down its military actions and Assad's murderous ways continue unabated, there will become less and less excuse for the international community not to declare war upon Assad.

Russia will then face another choice, to either stand with us or get out of the way and/or stand aside.

And this time "all" cannot afford to have caveats place upon the meaning of the word.

Assad's regime must be removed from the top down from get go, to assure the protection of all the populations of the region, and the stability of nations.

And to the Syrian opposition I can only say at that point this may not be what they want, but done because their need and the needs of the region is greater than their ability to achive success on their own in peaceful protest.

EJ

Originally posted on Dipnote on Thu Aug 25, 2011;

"http://blogs.state.gov/index.php/site/entry/clinton_human_rights_council..."

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
October 6, 2011

Eric in New Mexico writes:

(Reference 2)

Eric in New Mexico writes:

As the perverse status quo of Syria's nightmare under Assad continues unabated, it's good to have a witness, but I think it's taking one hell of a toll on the man, if this interview is any evidence;

bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15162300

Ya gotta wonder whether the international community will finally have seen too much to ignore without physicly intervening to put a stop to the slaughter (at Syrian protestor request and dire predicament)before the good Ambassador has seen too much and says "I've had enough, can't do this no more."

Everybody's got their limits, Assad knows none.

Time we hobbled his caboose.

(kicking the legs out from under him and letting him fall hard will amount to the same thing)

How much of this does the world want to witness anyway?

Folks be writing some pretty shameful history here if ya'all let this continue.

Regardless of what happens in the UNSC.

If no one can be bothered to drop a large rock on Assad's head, I guess he'll be reveling in his bloody entertainment for quite some time with a captive audience of silent aquiecence, from every cowardly leader on this planet who shirks their common duty to humanity.

There does come a point where in encoraging people to remain peaceful in the face of being killed by one's government, that one risks being accused of leading lambs to the slaughter, and it might be the truth.

The people are being driven to become violent out of pure survival instinct and it's not something diplomacy can control until the perpetrator of the crimes committed upon the people is stopped in his tracks.

He's been told to step aside, "get out of the way", (or get out of town...if you will) and now it's time to either bust him, or bury him.

Put him on trial in the Haugue, or let him find a hidy hole until hell catches up with him.

Then we can witness some peace.

Thanks for letting me vent like this Dipnote bloggers, they used to have this thing..."let's win this one for the gipper" ...I think we should do that for Amb. Ford in this case.

Unilaterally if we must, and against all objections..."you're either with us, or get the hell out of the way."

That'll ring a few bells and toot a few whisles and cause a few Mullahs in Iran many sleepless nights wondering if they're next, I'll betcha!

And we can do the Syrian people proud in the process. I think they know they are at the point where they need all the help they can get...as of yesterday.

EJ

Originally posted on Dipnote on Tue Oct 04, 2011;

"http://blogs.state.gov/index.php/site/entry/week_2011_10_02#Comments"

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
October 6, 2011

Eric in New Mexico writes:

"Others claim that strong Security Council action on Syria would merely be a pretext for military intervention.

"Let there be no doubt: this is not about military intervention. This is not about Libya. That is a cheap ruse by those who would rather sell arms to the Syrian regime than stand with the Syrian people.""-- a grave failure that may doom the prospects for peaceful protest in the face of a regime that knows no limits."

---

What suprises me a lot of the time is being able to offer assesment and then wait for my government to come to virtually the same conclusion as consistantly as they do.

Now that's not to say my government agrees with me on what I think ought to be done in the case of Assad's crimes against humanity -and there's no "might" or maybe about that- it either it is or it isn't, and it so obviously is at this point...that in offering these references of past postings that include virtually the same assesment that Amb. Rice is quoted here above, I have a high degree of confidence that as time passes, my government will find itself concurrent with the rest of my analysis.

And anyone who knows me well knows I hate being right most of the time.

I don't say these things to massage my ego, but to inspire people to think, and offer an education to folks like SNP ( welcome back despite the flatulance you offer us here bro...I hope the regime didn't imprison your family and make you write that, but stranger things have happened of late in Syria than you supporting the killing of civilians by this regime.)

The fact is that without that Unan. vote and a strong sanction laden resolution, the chances of armed intervention by outside forces increases exponentially as this crisis devolves into a long and protracted bloody civil war.

As a student of human nature all my life, the probabilities that peaceful protest can remain so in the face of deadly force waged upon the people, is over time reaching a point of criticality like smashing two hemispheres of U-238 together and waiting for the sun to rise twice in one day.

Violence becomes a dead certainty in response.

When if Russia truly deplores violence and seeks stability to maintain its ties and interests in Syria, their best bet diplomaticly is to inform Assad of their intent to reposses the tanks and weapons sold, and to divest themselves of their economic ties to the regime in solidarity with the people, knowing that Assad will not be in power this time next year and they stand to lose any and all influence with the incomming transitional government, as well as their mil/economic ties.

Churkin is like a little Dutch boy holding his finger in the dyke while the rest of it crumbles around him , pummeled by the forces of human nature.

"regime replacement therapy" is a brand new shiny car the people are using as a vehical to get where they want to go, and it ain't going to be America standing in their way. We have the tow truck to pull it out of the ditch the regime puts it in after they've run folks off the road in a rage.

That's generally America at its best in support of freedom and the hope and dreams of repressed peoples.

Folks may not understand or even appreciate the methods of removing the car from the ditch and putting it back on the road, but they do generally remember fondly who pulled them out of the mucky-muck on their road to successful self governance at the expense of dictators and tyrants.

Just as they'll remember SNP's support for Assad's crimes against them in calling peaceful protesters "terrorists" for picking up arms to defend themselves.

I don't think the people will trade Assad's ideology for SNP's NAZI ideology given they've had their eyes opened wide to all the BS promises of "reform" they've endured from the politicaly stupid of late.

As such, the Syrian National (socialist) Party has no credibility or legitimacy in its "Chief Strategist's" reasoning, other than thigs will be much more difficult now that Russia and China have given a green light to Assad to wage war upon the Syrian people.

EJ

deleted
October 6, 2011

D. writes:

very low on diplomacy

John P.
|
Greece
October 6, 2011

John P. in Greece writes:

@ SNP in Syria

Well, let’s say, I don’t remember the guy who wrote this in the Blog, but he was wise.

(my words): Do you live in Syria?

Zharkov
|
United States
October 6, 2011

Zharkov in the U.S.A. writes:

Considering the sick state of our economy, delivering the same to Syria should be a crime against humanity.

Are Syrians fighting to pay a combined local, state, and federal tax rate exceeding 60% of their income?

Do they demand to pay property tax so they can be evicted by the state when they are too old or too poor to cover their tax bills?

Are Syrians unhappy because their government has not bailed out Europe's wealthiest banking families from their lousy investments?

What exactly do we have to offer that anyone in their right mind would want? Certainly not free speech, if they adopt our Homeland Security type of police state where a joke at the airport can land you in jail for a week.

The fact is, Syrians know more about their president than we do about ours.

The UN veto is completely understandable and should have been expected. Nobody knows your plans for Syria and nobody trusts NATO or the UN.

Assad obviously views Syrian protesters as willing participants in a CIA plot and the protesters as being led by MI6 and CIA agents. Thanks to the British and US track record of trying to overthrow governments around the world with "color revolutions" and now "Arab Spring" in the Middle East, no ME leader takes public protest at face value.

Whether they are right or not depends on how deeply MI6 and CIA are involved in those movements. Assad may be thinking that his troops are shooting intel agents and foreign invaders.

And yes, if NATO had stayed out of Libya, maybe there would have been some support for a Syrian resolution. But after what happened to civilians in Libya, no Russian leader wants to see that happen to another Russian ally.

Russian and Chinese leaders view themselves as more than equal to US leaders, and each has willingly compromised that view in recent times. They question why they should vote against their national interest. They know the US has a private sector in chaos with a dying industrial base that may soon be incapable of producing sufficient war goods for a major battle, a US government with a 9% approval rating, and a US population on the brink of marching on Washington to evict the current office occupiers.

Russian and Chinese interests now directly conflict with the US goal of overthrowing governments across the Middle East. The only choice you offer them is that they must abandon their alliances. A more logical alternative is for you to have more reasonable goals.

If a foreign power tried to overthrow the US government by force using domestic unrest and protestors as a proxy army, would US protesters be treated any better than the National Guard treated the students at the Kent State University massacre, or Federal agents treated the 83 church members at Waco, Texas?

Can you see Assad's side that it takes time to democratize a government that had a long history of centralized power?

Perhaps you can see similarities between the UN and NATO bombing of Libya and Assad's reaction to violent protesters in his country?

Centralized government has a long history of violent reaction to any challenge to its authority, whether it is a monarchy, a communist dictatorship, or a democracy.

NATO resorted to violence when UN Libyan resolutions were ignored.
President Clinton resorted to violence when a federal search warrant was ignored at Waco. President Lincoln resorted to violence when the Confederacy ignored his proclamations. President Washington resorted to violence when the Declaration of Independence was ignored by the Crown.

50% of U.S. veterans of the post-9/11 military rightly believe the war in Afghanistan was not worth fighting.

56% of U.S. veterans think the Iraq war was not worth fighting, and a majority think that after 10 years of combat America should be focusing less on foreign affairs and more on its own problems, according to an opinion survey released Wednesday.

Telling Assad to stand down and allow his government to be overthrown is not working, so maybe it's time to try to reach a compromise that allows their style of democracy to develop over time without starting another war?

hard16
October 7, 2011

W.W. writes:

@ Zharkov in the U.S.A.

You are a bit more diplomatic then me

as in libya

end economy end finance get the mobster

John P.
|
Greece
October 7, 2011

John P. in Greece writes:

@ Zharkov in U.S.A.

So you think that CIA and M16 are working under the table? Are you sure my friend?

By now, I think I know how you think. And thank you very much for reminding us that Russia has a military base in Syria.

“Assad obviously views Syrian protesters as willing participants in a CIA plot and the protesters as being led by MI6 and CIA agents. Thanks to the British and US track record of trying to overthrow governments around the world with "color revolutions" and now "Arab Spring" in the Middle East, no ME leader takes public protest at face value.”

I won’t comment on every phrase of yours, because I strongly disagree with your thesis.

You write that America (U.S.A.) overthrow governments around the world with “color revolutions”…

Well, I like “orange” you like the “pink”… dude. That’s ok! We agree to disagree…

I will just remind you of a wise comment by Joe in TN, some years ago: (my words) we did not do anything SPECIAL to “overthrow”, or stop the Soviets. We just did some reading. After the reading, we knew better than them how life was there…

Do you live there?

That simple!

Zharkov
|
United States
October 7, 2011

Zharkov in the U.S.A. writes:

Yes, John in Greece, I think western intelligence, mainly CIA and MI6, are involved in Arab Spring.

President Bush got $400 million to overthrow the Iranian government and I've often wondered where in Iran they could spend that much money without it being noticed by Iranian intelligence.

So maybe a large chunk of that money went to overthrow Mubarak, Gaddafi, et.al. - only the banks knows for certain where that money went.

Do you think the Obama administration would support a revolution over which it had no control? Could they be that stupid? What if the next dictator was worse than the last one? How would that look when the US cheered him on? No, we are in there doing stuff. It's why we have a CIA.

Had we remained neutral in the matter of Libya and Syria, there could be no argument about US participation in the overthrow of those governments. That's the price our nation pays for minding other people's business. And that is why they don't trust our alleged good intentions. The CIA was originally founded for intel gathering only, not for starting revolutions. I think that institution has been corrupted and heads in the wrong direction.

As for color revolutions, some work, some don't. It's up to the citizens of those nations to decide.

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
October 8, 2011

Eric in New Mexico writes:

This seems like a fair question on it's face if one were to ignore the context in which it was asked, so I will answer it as such as a general inquiry;

"What exactly do we have to offer that anyone in their right mind would want?"

The short answer is;

A choice to seek one's own destiny.

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
October 8, 2011

Eric in New Mexico writes:

@ John P. in Greece,

I don't remember that guy too well either, must've been in another lifetime on this blog.

Things have changed, but mysteriously seem the same as they've ever been, and dysfunctional as hell on the world stage.

How's things in your neck of the woods?

Folks look to be taking quite the national holiday and needed time off...

There's got to be an up-side to that with a beach close by.

Hey, I know...let's bill China ten Trillion dollars tommorrow, and we'll bail you out of your economic mess with the leftovers of the 32 Trillion we'll be billing Iran the next day, because our deficit will be history on paper and our creditors are free to collect anything we owe them from what they owe us, directly from them.

Now that's the kind of creative financing this nation needs in recovery from economic indignation, currancy manipulation, and random acts of ethical infants.

Put China to work for us paying some of it off removing "lil Kim in North Korea as one would a self made Frankenstien experiment gone bad.

And 32 years of "death to America" is definately a billable offense to us.

Cost 'em big time.

Sanction...nah, that's old school,...I prefer direct billing for political stupidity, it's more educational.

The Russians, and others will get their bill from the Syrian people eventually for failing to invest wisely in them.

The Russian Federation has obviously not learned the lessons the Breakup of the Soviet Union should have taught them by now about an individual's need for independence of thought and action and why they should support that rather than support the opposite.

A smart greek once opined of the oracle; "Is it not wise to get a second opinion?"

Only to be burned by Zues, who wasn't given to be questioned in matters of authority.

Little dictators, wannabe gods.

It never changes, never has in all of history.

Spark of rebellion, taken to the streets.

Crumbled castles, city walls.

Dust and Famine, and a wastland awaits.

Where wildflowers dreamed of rain.

To whether we, in our humble course,

be true to ourselves in bearing witness;

Logic over emotionalism, truth over viewpoint, and ethics over all.

Being there is always a hardship clause that defies veto.

EJ

John P.
|
Greece
October 8, 2011

John P. in Greece writes:

@ Zharkov in the U.S.A.

Simple, but rather complicated;

What kind of foreign policy would you like to have along with your internal policy?

We all know why CIA was founded and the Mission of the Agency:
("https://www.cia.gov/about-cia/cia-vision-mission-values/index.html")

“Mission
We are the nation’s first line of defense. We accomplish what others cannot accomplish and go where others cannot go. We carry out our mission by:
• Collecting information that reveals the plans, intentions and capabilities of our adversaries and provides the basis for decision and action.
• Producing timely analysis that provides insight, warning and opportunity to the President and decisionmakers charged with protecting and advancing America’s interests.
• Conducting covert action at the direction of the President to preempt threats or achieve US policy objectives.”

However, all these ideas are applicable in a theoretical basis, when the game is played with the same rules from other countries too. Otherwise “the company” must improvise. But, this another discussion and does not mean that I agree with your automatic conclusion that CIA plays a role in any “color” or “spring” revolutions. They may watch and analyze things, but there is no evidence of manipulating countries’ futures and civilian decisions.

So, I think that we should leave CIA out of this discussion. Let them work. Anyway, all these decades they do a GREAT job!

What we can do is analyze, discuss and debate on the formula of the foreign policy.

What kind of foreign policy would you like?

When the United States of America do not engage in a country crisis, plenty of non-charismatic civilians say that we don’t participate on the ground that we have no “oil interests”, etc.

When we do help countries (Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Libya, plenty of others around the globe) to find their steps to democracy, everybody accuses America that works under the table in order to gain “oil money”.

But we never stayed there Zharkov.

We left Yugoslavia to the people of Yugoslavia. And finally Balkans found a healthy “road map”.

We never “drilled” in Kuwait, after the “God” G. Bush offered them their freedom.

The Obama Administration makes its best to educate and rebuild the infrastructure in Afghanistan, fetching them to 2011 and not the caves they used to live in.

We always return empty handed, but there is always the accusation that “bad Americans” have created the story.

If you want to be a hyper-power you have to engage in. Otherwise you’ll become a small village.

So, what kind of foreign policy would you like?

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
October 9, 2011

Eric in New Mexico writes:

News Item;

“If the Syrian leadership is incapable of conducting such reforms, it will have to go,” said President Dmitri A. Medvedev, in remarks reported by Russian news agencies. “But this decision should be taken not in NATO or certain European countries. It should be taken by the Syrian people and the Syrian leadership.”

Washington welcomed the shift in Russia’s position, but a State Department official said that the United States would like to see Russia and other countries exert pressure on Syria by imposing economic sanctions.

“That is very positive,” said Victoria Nuland, a State Department spokeswoman, on Friday. “But as we have said, we want to see more countries join us not only in increasing the political and rhetorical pressure on the regime, but also tightening the economic noose.”

-NY Times, Oct 8th, 2011

Ok then folks, may I suggest Ms. Nuland offer hypothetical food for thought that Russia might want to just remove Assad themselves if they can't stand the thought of NATO getting involved...and obviously Nato isn't going to go where the people themselves have not sought such intervention prior, so Mr. M's concerns about NATO is just more a political misunderstanding based on mistrust than in real-time logic of the reality of intent to protect populations through coercive diplomacy.

Glad he's starting to see the light about the way forward, but he's still got to get over a bit of traditional political angst to step out of the tunnel of a certain cold war mentality that seems to linger like the smell of a dead skunk on the side of the road on the way to a people's freedom from oppression.

Someone should invite the man to read Dipnote on occasion, if he hasn't already reviewed my assesment of the situation.

(chuckle)

(just putting myself in the fellow's shoes upon reading such a blistering critique independent of that of US government officials, and his change of heart (as policy) being a logical response-;)

Gives a fellow hope he does...but we'll never know who reads these comments will we?

EJ

Zharkov
|
United States
October 22, 2011

Zharkov in the U.S.A. writes:

@ John in Greece, I would like a foreign policy similar to that of Switzerland. It's one country that tries to mind its own business.

Have you ever read a news report of Swiss intelligence involved in someone else's revolution? How about Greece?

Does Greece spend money to overthrow Assad or anyone else? I doubt it.

As for the CIA, it typically acts through infiltration of indigenous organizations within the target country, assisting dissenting groups, or acting through NGO branches within the country, or paying foreign news media to plant stories to generate dissent.

Look up "Operation Mockingbird" on any search engine to discover how little you know about that wonderful agency and how it has evolved into the opposite of its original mission that President Truman intended.

I suppose we can blame the Bond movies for warping the view our our political establishment into becoming a government of Goldfingers trying to control the world.

.

Latest Stories

Pages