hillary putin lavrov


“More importantly, the repeated attempts to deceive them at the UNSC turned Russia’s ‘dislike’ of the neocon methods into deep ‘disgust’, leading President Putin and his principled Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov to stop communicating with Hillary Clinton towards the end of her stint.”




End of deception as basis of int’l relations

Dr Kamal Wickremasinghe

The underlying dishonesty of the US pursuing Sri Lanka at the UNHRC on war crimes becomes easier to comprehend when considered in the context of the neocon foreign policy principle laid down by the godfather of the movement, Henry Kissinger – he spelt out that “moral perfection” is not a US foreign policy imperative.

One of the UNHRC sittings

Such disregard for morals should surprise no one, coming from, as the late Christopher Hitchens charged, a war criminal directly responsible for over a million civilian deaths in Vietnam and Cambodia alone, and many more in Latin America.

On the bright side, it is the execution of such an immoral, deceptive, and often criminal, foreign policy by the US that is causing the fast crumbling of the empire, some might say, not before time.

There is sweet irony in the US attempts to act as the global ‘enforcer’ of human rights too. Their preoccupation with the charade seems to make them totally oblivious to the crumbling of the empire around them. Alternatively, they are in denial about the emergence of a new international order led by China and Russia, sounding the death knell for neocolonilaism.

The issuing of further instructions to Sri Lanka by a whole list of apparatchiks of the US ruling cabal, on how we could comply with the orders delivered through the good offices of Navanethem Pillay, embodied the arrogance and stupidity of the crumbling empire; Secretary of State John Kerry, and noisy state department operatives like Eileen Donohue and Victoria Nuland, and the ambassador in Colombo all offered further advice and instructions to Sri Lanka – It did not look like the thought ‘no one may be listening’ had crossed their minds!

A cursory look at the division at the UNHRC on the vote on Sri Lanka, as has been done by many commentators, shows that the battle lines are drawn between the former European colonisers and the neocoloniser America, tagging along the eastern Europeans yearning to join the ‘white’ European Union club on one side, and the progressive developing nations led by Russia and China on the other.

This neat division of forces is only excepted by special cases like India, where domestic politics is fast becoming a neocon plaything, made so through the infiltration of the higher echelons of the administrative services, the ministry of external affairs in particular, periodic staging of ‘terror’ attacks, and subtle propaganda campaigns designed to arouse raw public emotions. There is also the ‘special’ relationship the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J. Jayalalitha forged, amongst collecting chins, with the neocon Hillary Clinton.

South Korea is another exception where the fraudulent creation of tension in the Korean peninsula by the neocons, by harping on the threat of an imminent North Korean missile attack, leaves them in an untenable position. Few corrupt African and Latin American puppet governments also fall in to this mix.

Vladimir Putin Xi Jinping Barack Obama

Despite such aberrations, pleasingly, there are signs that the days of manipulation of international affairs by the intellectually and financially corrupt neocon cabal are numbered.

Countries that matter mind their own business

A number of momentous international events that signalled the emergence of a new international order based on mutual respect and interest, and non-interference were taking place right at the time of the US orchestration of the anti-Sri Lankan resolution at the UNHRC in Geneva.

The most significant of these was the arrival of the new Chinese President Xi Jinping in Moscow.

Mr Xi’s choice of Russia as his first overseas destination since assuming office in November 2012 was clearly designed to send a strong message to the world, to America in particular.

During the meeting the Russian President Vladimir Putin stressed the warmth of the strong economic and strategic relationship between Russia and China that is set to grow stronger – Bilateral trade between the two countries has been steadily growing, reaching $88.1 billion in 2012.

During the March visit, Mr Xi and Mr Putin signed 30 more trade agreements on Russian natural gas, oil, arms, and engineering goods in exchange for Chinese consumer products. Bilateral trade between the two countries is forecast to reach $200 billion by 2020.

The strategic relationship is intensifying on the back of increasing trade.

While such historic developments were taking place in Moscow, in stark contrast, President Obama was visiting Israel, the albatross around America’s neck, as if to apologise to the world about the international relations quagmire they are in.

Obama would have found that the Middle East has changed unrecognisably from what he saw in his 2009 visit to Cairo where he announced a “new beginning” with the Muslim world, based on “mutual interest and mutual respect.” The rhetoric was not backed by any meaningful action.

The broadly-based Muslim anger against the US is reflected in the latest survey by the Pew Research Centre’s Global Attitudes Project – support for the US in Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Pakistan is lower today than it was during the closing years of George W. Bush’s administration.

The Arab Spring, which Obama would have thought was going to usher in a new era for exploitation of the Middle East for the US, has diverged onto the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood. Nor did Obama have anything to offer the Middle East in terms of ‘road maps’, for peace, any other grand designs or major foreign policy initiatives. Young Palestinians showed their frustration by defacing billboards with Obama’s image and burnt pictures of him in the streets. Obama just had a gala dinner with the armed and the powerful, toured the Holocaust memorials, and of course, the Wall and flew back home.

The international community is turning away from the US and the West

There are increasing signs that the world is simply waking up to the ‘sick’ neocon world of deceptive talk and militarism, and are beginning to protest against their destruction of the global value system based on the cultural heritage of, definitely the Asian countries, and Russia, founded on mutual respect and non-interference in the affairs of others.

J. Jayalalitha
Hillary Clinton

This view is reinforced by Mr Putin’s announcement with the Chinese President that – “Our relations are characterised by a high degree of mutual trust, respect for each other’s interests, and support in vital issues”.

The values of the global relations regime instituted by the “special relationship” between the old colonial master Britain and the new neocoloniser US, founded on deception and interference is fundamentally different to these ideals and the world is finding it repulsive.

British writer Mark Curtis who has written a number of books exposing the human rights violations and other British crimes around the world, writes in his 2003 book Web of Deceit – Britain’s Real Role in the World, that Britain’s foreign policy that is purported to promote democracy, peace and human rights globally, in reality supports terrorism. Indeed, “violating international law has become as British as afternoon tea” Curtis writes.

By exposing the formerly secret planning record, Curtis sheds new light on the human rights abuses the British-US ‘special relationship’ has committed in the developing world, often in collaboration with the corporate media and academia through their support of foreign policy decisions. Curtis estimates that approximately ten million deaths have been caused since 1945 as a result of the UK’s foreign policy.

As recently as the 1950s, the British colonial police murdered around 10,000 Kenyans during the Mau Mau uprising against colonial rule and used torture techniques such as slicing off ears, flogging until death and pouring paraffin over suspects and setting them alight. “Free fire zones” were set up, where any African could be shot on sight, with hands often chopped off to make fingerprinting easier. At the same time the British media was expressing horror at the Mau Mau tactics.

As to the more recent atrocities, the human cost of the Iraq invasion amounts to more than a million civilian deaths due to “shock and awe’ bombing, and millions were made refugees in their own country or around the world. Bloodshed continues.

Aiding and abetting of secessionists the primary tool

The US-British led on-going attempts to establish a global value system based on a deceitful commitment to human rights protection and the promotion of so-called ‘civic society’ activism is in fact the corollary to their grand plan of divide-and-rule by aiding and abetting of secessionist movements in the developing world.

Actions aimed at diverting national attention from economic development, to perpetuate poverty that serves as the foundation for rebellion, and financing the conversion of various disaffected groups in to bellicose NGOs are the other components of this elaborate scheme of sabotage of the developing world. Most such activities are carried out under diplomatic cover, fully exploiting the provisions of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961.

The obnoxious disparity between their own record of human rights violations and the pursuit of human rights protection ideal through UN and other multilateral fora is explained by their primeval desire to ‘protect’ secessionists by curbing the efforts of national governments to counteract by tying their hands behind their backs.

In addition to inciting domestic rebellion, the use of the UN system in the past, through the cynical exploitation of the good will of Russia and China at the Security Council, has been the other primary tool of achieving global control through regime change.

This particular fraud worked in the cases of lies about Iraqi “weapons of mass destruction” and the Libyan “war crimes” canard – In both cases, the fraudulently obtained Security Council resolutions were misinterpreted to initiate military invasions.

Syria proved the straw that broke the camel’s back

The neocons orchestrated the Iraqi and Libyan invasions a decade apart, in 2002 and 2011 respectively, in order to conceal the similarity of their methodology and to exploit the generational change of UN representations of member countries.

It took a while, but slowly and surely, Russsia and China woke up to the fraud and repelled the neocon attempts to use the same methodology to carry out a “humanitarian invasion” of Syria. More importantly, the repeated attempts to deceive them at the UNSC turned Russia’s ‘dislike’ of the neocon methods into deep ‘disgust’, leading President Putin and his principled Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov to stop communicating with Hillary Clinton towards the end of her stint. It has been well known in foreign policy circles that the US started arming the Syrian opposition in 2006. Following their ‘success’ in Libya, they intensified support through the post-Gaddafi Libyan junta, itself a funder and arms supplier of the Syrian insurgents.

The neocon conspiracy for a Syrian regime change imploded on September 11, 2012, ten years to the day of the World Trade Centre events, when an armed group of Jihadists staged a nighttime attack on the US consulate and a neighbouring CIA “safe house” in Benghazi, Libya.

Mystery surrounded the circumstances of the attack and there were clear signs that the US was hiding something – White House was creating the false narrative that a protest over an anti-Muslim video was behind the attack, but there was no record of protests in Benghazi over the video.

The State Department declined to reveal the number of casualties. It later emerged that four Americans including US Ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens and had been killed and some State Department and CIA employees, and security contractors were among the casualties. The injured had their names changed on hospital records so as not to be identified since they work in clandestine services.

In November 2012 however, Clare Lopez, a former operations officer with the CIA, now an intelligence expert on the Middle East, broke the news of the CIA’s presence and their activities in Benghazi, Libya, also identifying two former Navy SEALs killed as being employed by the CIA.

Investigative journalist Aaron Klein reported that the “consulate” in Benghazi was in fact a CIA “safe house” used by Stevens and others to coordinate with the Libyan Al-qaeda groups and the Turkish, Saudi and Qatari governments on supporting the “Arab Spring” insurgencies in Iran and Syria. Normal security measures weren’t provided at the building in order to protect its cover as a State Department operation.

It emerged that Stevens was managing a CIA operation, together with the CIA Director David Petraeus, to ship Al-qaeda fighters and heavy weaponry from Muammar Gaddafi’s stock to Syrian rebels through Turkey, through his ‘friend’ Abdelhakim Belhadj, leader of the Al-qaeda franchise in Libya, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, that led the “opposition” in Libya. The State Department provided “diplomatic cover” to the operation by placing seven of its employees.

Pieces began to fall in to place in the light of a UN Security Council resolution the US obtained to “help secure the loose weapons” in Libya and Hillary Clinton’s announcement a month after the October 2011 murder of Gaddafi to commit $40 million to help Libya “secure and recover its weapons stockpiles.” Shortly before the Benghazi US embassy attack, on September 6, a Libyan ship carrying 400 tons of SA-7s surface-to-air anti-craft missiles and rocket-propelled grenades docked in southern Turkey. The ship was captained by a Libyan from Benghazi, the head of an organisation called the Libyan National Council for Relief and Support,” established by the new government. Ambassador Stevens’ last meeting on September 11, before he was killed in the attack, was with Turkish Consul General Ali Sait Akin, “to negotiate a further weapons transfer.” That never happened, hopefully.

Sidelines to the Syrian weapons transfer conspiracy

There are other interesting sidelines to the Syrian weapons transfer story that expose other aspects of deception the neocon establishment subject, not only the wider world, but US citizens too.

The announcement of a scandal of an extramarital affair of the CIA Chief David Petraeus with his biographer was timed so that Petraeus could avoid testifying before the Senate Intelligence Committee about the CIA’s role in the illegal weapons transfer.

The second was the hospitalisation of Hillary Clinton on account of ‘concussion’ she suffered during a fall; the informed opinion is that Clinton found the revelation of the Benghazi clandestine operation too much and suffered a nervous breakdown – an occupational hazard associated with deceptive activities that tantamount to mass murder.

The other more significant aspect of the story is that the neocon owned wire services and other corporate media, including the Associated Press, The New York Times and The Washington Post, the guardians of freedom of expression revered by the NGOs, had agreed not to publish the information on the CIA operation at the request of the US government. Other agencies, like the ABC News, provided disinformation that the aims of the operation was to “round up dangerous weapons” in Libya.

The US corporate media only reported that in Syria, good people are trying to overthrow a tyrant who uses the military against the good people of Syria!

America breaks international law with impunity

The worst outcome of the Benghazi attack to the neocons was that it validated Russia’s long-held position that the US of providing support to Syrian terrorists to topple the Assad government, in breach of international law.

This is nothing new – for decades, the US has backed terrorists the world over as tools to achieve its geopolitical objectives. The US supported opposition which overthrew Libya’s Gaddafi was largely comprised of Al-qaeda terrorists headquartered in Benghazi. The neocons have been planning regime change in Syria using false flag terror since the end of the 1967 war.

They have been active elsewhere too – in 1986, the International Court of Justice, presided by Justice Nagendra Singh of India decided by twelve votes to three,(in Nicaragua Vs United States of America – Case Concerning The Military And Paramilitary Activities In And Against Nicaragua), that the US, by training, arming, equipping, financing and supplying the ‘contra’ forces in Nicaragua, acted in breach of its obligation under customary international law not to intervene in the affairs of another State. The present weapons supply to Al-qaeda however, breaks an international law they themselves imposed on the world – a binding arms embargo on UN member states that prohibits weapons transfer to countries or groups involved in terrorism including Al-qaeda.

But they do not seem to consider the so-called ‘international law’ applies to them. David Cameron indicated in early March that the UK might be prepared to bypass an EU arms embargo to Syrian rebels. His Foreign Minister William Hague announced soon after that Britain would be providing “non-lethal equipment” to Syrian insurgents.

It took the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov to remind Haig that any move by the British government to give the rebels military equipment would breach international law, adding – “International law doesn’t allow, doesn’t permit, the supplies of arms to non-governmental actors.”

Lessons for Sri Lanka

The unethical, and often criminal, behaviour of the neocon controlled US administrations in the international arena has cost them respect of the international community. The US attempts to disguise the decidedly ‘unfriendly’ actions as the introduction of resolutions on unfounded charges of war crimes as helpful ‘advice’ of a friend must be discarded out of hand.

The adoption of the anti-Sri Lankan resolution at the UNHRC did not indicate the acceptance by the international community of the necessity of Sri Lanka’s commitments in implementing the proposals for reconciliation and accountability, as suggested by Victoria Nuland. The government must resolutely adhere to its own programme of addressing poverty and economic deprivation of all communities.

The government needs to pay special attention to the announcement by the US ambassador that “America has already initiated several programmes in organising civil society groups and empowering the youth with a view to support the reconciliation process.”

It sounds suspiciously like a programme of funding and training for internal subversive groups, true to form.





“Foreign policy will not be borne in the minds of a few”





Rose Cupo

Published on Mar 27, 2013

“Benghazi Cover-Up Syria CIA Petraeus Hillary Obama STOP NATO Newsfeed”

About “sisterrosetta”

Scribd for downloading and searching (and listening):