Global Research

Though It is difficult to predict the trajectory of US action on the UN Security Council after President Trump Is inaugurated, the legacy of President Obama’s administration is hardly an example of the peace for which Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. 

The destruction of Libya was authorized by the UN Security Council Resolution 1973 during the Obama administration, with US-NATO spearheading that pulverizing attack on a previously stable and progressive Arab nation which had eschewed its attempts to achieve the status of a nuclear weapons state.  Secretary of State Clinton gloated, following the torture-murder of Libyan President Omar Khadafy,  “We came, we saw, he died.”

On October 25, the sequel to the October 8 Security Council meeting was held, another Alice in Wonderland at the Mad Tea Party event, or more tragically described, another demonstration of the obfuscation of reality at which the NATO powers excel.  The meeting featured the predictable demonization of Russia, including a hyperbolic speech by the US Ambassador who is not very discerning, and is on record, earlier in her career for her famous – or infamous – demonization of Hillary Clinton as a “monster,”  a “faux pas” compelling her immediate resignation from the 2012 presidential campaign of Barack Obama.

The abuse of the UN Security Council by NATO in its effort to legitimize regime change in Russia was flagrant, once again throughout that meeting, with diametrically opposed statements by NATO powers  United States and  United Kingdom, which were skillfully refuted by Shanghai Cooperation Organization members, Russia and China.  Venezuela represented the non-nuclear developing world’s potential victims of the nuclear conflict which would result from Security Council authorization of a “no-fly zone” in Syria, and the consequent confrontation between NATO and Russia, inevitably morphing into a nuclear exchange.  Venezuelan Ambassador Ramirez again provided the sane, balanced analysis of this deadly proxy conflict in Syria, which potentially jeopardizes the survival of the human species.

The United Kingdom Ambassador stated, superciliously:

“You said, Sir, that the United Nations should stick to facts.  Today Stephen O’Brien stuck religiously to facts.  The problem for you, Mr. President, is that they are not facts that you like. …  They are all facts, reality and in stark contrast to the absurd and surreal fantasy theatre that we are hearing from Russia”

The Russian Ambassador replied:

“Just the other day in Yemen, as we all know, 200 people in a funeral procession were killed and 500 more were injured when it was bombed (by the coalition of which the UK is a part).  The British delegation issued a draft statement expressing regret.  Regret.  They could not even bring themselves to condemn it.  When we told them that was not strong enough, they were very happy to abandon the whole thing.  Almost 1,000 people killed or injured, and all they have is regret?  How about that for standards?”

The Saudi-led coalition slaughtering civilians in Yemen is supported, funded and armed by Britain, the United States, and their proxies among the Arab states.   And NATO’s attempt to demonize Russia for the failure of United Nations humanitarian efforts in Syria was effectively repudiated by China.  In China’s classic and elegant refusal to directly confront and name the actual saboteurs of UN humanitarian efforts, the Chinese delegation nevertheless left no doubt about who actually bears deliberate responsibility for the failure of these UN humanitarian efforts.

Representative Wu Haitao of China stated:

“China welcomes the recent humanitarian emergency initiative taken by the Russian and Syrian Governments in order to help the United Nations in evacuating the sick and the wounded.  However, due to the fact that that initiative did not receive a response from the other parties in Syria, the United Nations operation to evacuate the sick and the wounded failed to be implemented…..The incessant terrorist attacks by terrorists in Syria have seriously hampered the United Nations humanitarian efforts.  Efforts to ease the Syrian humanitarian situation must not neglect the fight against terrorism.”

Finally, it was, once again,  Venezuela’s Ambassador Ramirez Carreno who exposed the root of this horrific war in Syria:

“Not only are we calling into question the United Nations system and the reports being presented, but we also recognize with some concern that the issue of humanitarian aid is being distorted and politicized.  But this happens only when it is in the interests of certain permanent members – very influential members of the Security Council.  I believe we have never discussed here, and perhaps will never discuss, the humanitarian topic in Yemen in a debate like this one, or the topic of the humanitarian situation in Iraq, which continues to combat terrorists and continues its advance on Mosul.  But we are not going to discuss that here, I am sure that we have not discussed nor will discuss what the humanitarian consequences were of the foreign intervention in Libya or Gaza….In other words, in the Council the humanitarian topic is used in a political way.  It is manipulated:  it is distorted.  And in this specific case it is used to attack the Russian Federataion for its active participation in the fight against terrorism in Syria….Most of the permanent members of the Security Council have been involved in this conflict since it began.  They have fueled this war.  They have encouraged it.  They have financed it.  They trained groups that later become terrorists.  ….We have here a terrible case of manipulation of the humanitarian issue in order to attack Russia.”

NATO’s preparation for, and provocation of war with Russia is evident in these UN Security Council meetings. This brinksmanship is a game of “chicken,” or, perhaps this perilous activity can be more aptly described as NATO’s game of “Russian Roulette” with the lives of all humanity. The criminally wasteful expenditure of one trillion dollars for the development of advanced nuclear weapons was approved during the administration of President Obama.  Will these weapons be used during the administration of President Trump?

Author and geopolitical analyst Carla Stea is Global Research’s Correspondent at the United Nations Headquarters, New York.