American Resistance To Empire

Obama, Global arms dealer-in-chief

This Nobel Peace Prize winner has sold $90bn worth of weapons to Saudi Arabia since 2010, and even eclipsed arms sales under George W Bush

Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize a mere 12 days into his presidency. Never had a recipient achieved so little to be lauded so much. Essentially it was a pre-emptive award given on the presumption Obama’s foreign policy record would eventually meet its promise.

In the six-years since becoming planet earth’s most recognised agent for world peace, Obama has failed to close Guantanamo Bay, which remains the symbol of the darkest chapter in modern US history; has assassinated US citizens around the globe sans due process; has suspended habeas corpus; has terrorised villagers in Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and elsewhere with the incessant buzzing sound of weaponised drones; armed Israel in the midst of its brutal and bloody invasion of Gaza, which left more than 2,200 Palestinians dead; toppled a government in Libya without so much as a consideration for what might come next; supported the toppling of a democratically elected government in Egypt, and, in turn, armed arguably the most brutal dictator in that country’s history; and has coordinated and guided Saudi Arabia’s terrorist activities in Yemen, which has left more than 4,000 Yemeni civilians dead.

It’s a record to behold with some awe, and it gets worse.

A newly released report reveals Obama is the greatest arms exporter since the Second World War. The dollar value of all major arms deals overseen by the first five years of the Obama White House now exceeds the amount overseen by the Bush White House in its full eight years in office by nearly $30 billion.

Hail the chief

America’s arms-dealer-in-chief has flooded the most volatile corner of the world, the Middle East, with guns, bombs, fighter jets, tanks and missiles.

In an interview, William Hartung, director of the Arms and Security Project at the Center for International Policy, told Democracy Now he was “astonished that Obama had sold this much”. He added: “I mean, I knew there were record deals with the Saudis, but to outsell the eight years of Bush, to sell more than any president since World War II, was surprising even to me, who follows these things quite closely. The majority, 60 percent, have gone to the Persian Gulf and Middle East, and within that, the Saudis have been the largest recipient of things like US fighter planes, Apache attack helicopters, bombs, guns, almost an entire arsenal they’ve purchased just in the last few years.”

Hartung also points out that this breathtaking bundle of war tools not only makes its way to stable regimes and governments, but also to states on the verge of collapse, which ultimately means many of these arms end up in the hands of militia groups across the region, which results in an all too predictable conclusion: more death and chaos.

Investigative journalist Dr Nafeez Ahmed says that if you want to trace the origins of certain jihadist groups, all you need to do is “follow the money”. He notes: “Anyone can have bad, horrific, disgusting ideas. But they can only be fantasies unless we find a way to manifest them materially in the world around us.” US arms sales to failing states and non-state militias is providing those with “disgusting ideas” the material infrastructure to play out their fantasies.

In other words, the deluge of US arms into the region is making conflicts, rivalries, and unrest even more deadlier, and with the US having little idea whose hands much of this weaponry ends up in.

“We don’t know the full numbers, but in Iraq the security forces abandoned large amounts of the weaponry to ISIS. US-armed rebels in Syria, armed by the CIA, went over to join ISIS. There’s $500 million missing of weapons in Yemen. Some think it’s gone to the Houthis. Some think it’s gone to al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula,” said Hartung. “Of course, there’s arms on both sides, because the government and the forces have split in this war. So it’s quite possible every side of that war in Yemen may have some level of US weaponry. So it’s really gone, you know, haywire. It’s sort of what I call the boomerang effect, when US arms end up in the hands of US adversaries.”

But what amounts to “haywire” for the Middle East amounts to massive profits for the US, and on that score no single entity is more profitable and more beneficial to America’s balance of trade than Saudi Arabia.

Arming Saudi

The Congressional Research Service found that since October 2010 alone, President Obama has agreed to sell $90.4 billion in arms to the Gulf kingdom.

“That President Obama would so enthusiastically endorse arming such a brutal authoritarian government is unsurprising, since the United States is by far the leading arms dealer (with 47 percent of the world total) to what an annual State Department report classifies as the world’s “least democratically governed states,” notes Micah Zenko, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Obama has done little to promote democracy or bring an end to terror. When children in Gaza pick up unexploded ordinance, they see “Made in Bethesda, Maryland, USA.”

In 2008, the United Nations banned the use of cluster munitions – an agreement the US is yet to ratify. Why? Cluster bombs are the number one seller for Textron Systems Corporation – a Wall Street-listed company located in Providence, Rhode Island. For $38 per share, you can add the sale of cluster bombs to your stock portfolio.

In February of this year, the Obama administration announced it would allow the sale of US manufactured armed drones to its allies in the Middle East. According to the Teal Group, a research and analysis firm, the sale of drones is expected to double from $5 billion to $11 billion over the course of the next decade.

This means countries with horrific human rights records – regimes whose power is dependent on the repression of its people – will have access to the most brutally effective tool available for repression management. While the Obama administration insists the sale of drones will be made on a “case-by-case” basis, it’s laughable that the US gets to decide who gets these aerial killers given the US’s own use of drones often violates international law.

In fact, both a 2013 Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch report found that US drone strikes were killing far more civilians than the Obama White House was letting on, and these strikes were nearly always in violation of international law.

Drone dynamics

Furthermore, armed unmanned airborne vehicles have the potential to completely change the power dynamics in the Middle East. “The drone is the ultimate imperial weapon, allowing a superpower almost unlimited reach while keeping its own soldiers far from battle,” notes James Risen in Pay Any Price: Greed, Power, and Relentless War.

There isn’t a country in the Middle East that isn’t clamouring for the Predator drone. Obama, via US drone manufactures such as General Atomics, is making the dreams of some of the most oppressive regimes a reality. From Egypt to Saudi Arabia, from Syria to Iraq, the forthcoming flood of such advanced weaponry promises to produce effects we are yet to imagine. “An advance fleet of missile-carrying drones could, overnight, turn a group like Hezbollah into a legitimate military power,” forewarns Risen. “A drone programme for Hezbollah could alter the military dynamics along the Israel-Lebanon border.”

These end games are not imagined by the Obama administration, nor any other US administration past or future because profits supersede democracy, human rights and international law; thus greed promises the Middle East endless war, and the US military oligarchs endless profits. Obama, like his predecessors, has made sure of that.

– CJ Werleman is the author of Crucifying America, God Hates You. Hate Him Back, Koran Curious, and is the host of Foreign Object. Follow him on twitter: @cjwerleman

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye. 

Photo: President of the United States Barack Obama speaks during the 2015 Sustainable Development Summit, on 27 Sept 2015, at United Nations headquarters, New York.

– See more at:

Taliban Enter Kunduz, Seize Another Jail, Release Hundreds

So far 16 killed, 170 wounded in Kunduz battle


KABUL/KUNDUZ CITY (Pajhwok): The Ministry of Public Health (MoPH) on Tuesday said 16 people had been killed and more than 170 others injured during clashes in the capital of northern Kunduz province.

MoPH spokesman Wahidullah Mayar said the dead bodies and the wounded people had been transferred to the provincial zonal hospital and that most of the victims were civilians.

A day earlier, Kunduz Public Health Department said four dead bodies and 47 injured people, most of them civilians, were taken to the provincial civil hospital.

The Taliban launched their coordinated attacks from various directions on Kunduz City, the provincial capital, on the night between Sunday and Monday and were able to capture the entire city until late Monday.

But the Afghan Ministry of Defnece (MoD) in a statement said reinforcements reaching Kunduz City this morning had launched operation to retake Kunduz City from Taliban militants.

US-led coalition forces also conducted their first airstrike on Talban targets on the outskirts of Kunduz city in the morning.

The MoD said Afghan forces recaptured the police headquarters and the central jail from Taliban militants during the clearing operation launched on Tuesday morning.

The large number of rebels took control of military and civil facilities including the 200-bed civil hospital, the police headquarters, schools, markets and some provincial departments and set free hundreds of inmates from the central jail after capturing it, in what appeared to be the Taliban’s first major victory since 2001. The rebels on Monday set free hundreds of prisoners from Kunduz central jail after gaining control of it.

The MoD said the enemy was weak and could not put up resistance and security forces were advancing and that Kunduz City was currently surrounded by security forces and Taliban militants were inflicted heavy casualties during the ongoing operation.

Without giving exact figures, the statement said: “Taliban terrorists who are directed by regional intelligence agencies are fleeing Kunduz city, only some of them are firing from residential buildings at Afghan forces.” The MoD assured local residents that Afghan forces were taking all possible measures to protect their lives.

After entering Kunduz City, Taliban militants, the Haqqani network, and other insurgents misused the opportunity and looted people’s houses and their belongings, the MoD claimed.

“The capture of Kunduz City by Taliban is just a propaganda achievement for the rebel group, we are sure these terrorists would not be able stand ground against Afghan forces.”

Eyewitnesses had previously said except the airport and Bala Hesar area, all other areas of the city had fallen to the Taliban.

Afghan security forces are currently stationed in Kunduz airport, Bala Hesar and Bagh Sherkat areas.

A separate MoD statement issued on Monday evening said 35 militants had been killed and a number of others injured during clashes with Afghan forces.

However, the Taliban claimed they had captured large areas from government forces and had killed 15 soldiers during the attacks on the city. They also claimed seizing a large amount of weapons and equipment from security forces.

Meanwhile, Ministry of Interior spokesman Sediq Sediqqi tweeted early Tuesday that fresh Afghan troops had been sent to northern parts of the city, where an operation to clear Kunduz of Taliban had been initiated.

US-led coalition forces also conducted their first airstrike on Talban targets on the outskirts of Kunduz city in the morning.

The Taliban reportedly also killed some female medics and tribal elders in the city; unverified pictures on social media show the Taliban driving International Committee of the Red Cross vehicles seized in Kunduz.

Afghan Ministry of Public Health spokesman Wahidullah Mayar said: “Our hospitals in Kunduz province have received 172 injured patients and 16 dead bodies so far”.

An Afghan National Army (ANA) commander, who wished anonymity, said Afghan forces had started their operation from Kunduz airport and had crossed the Saydarak and University Square.

A resident of the city, Nawroz Kakar, said: “The situation is very dangerous, clashes are ongoing and heavy and small arms are being used.”

He said his home was near Kunduz central jail, which was the scene of fierce clashes between security forces and Taliban.

Heavy and small weapons fire hit some civilian houses, causing casualties families, he said.

“There is no government and all officials have fled, if there was any government, people would not have suffered as much as they did. People cannot go out of their houses,” Kakar said, adding that all shops and offices had been closed and the city presented the scence of a military ground.

Another resident of the city, Mohammad Ullah, said jet aircrafts were hovering over the city.

He said militants took out of their homes people they suspected of having links with the government and killed them.

But the Taliban in a statement received by Pajhwok Afghan News said the life in Kunduz province was “normal” and the government claims of retaking areas were baseless.

The group’s spokesman, Zabihullah Mujahid, said US aircrafts bombarded two locations but no one from the militants got hurt.

Mujahid rejected government’s claims that the Taliban had torched government departments and looted moneychangers, banks, shops or people’s houses and said the government wanted to propagate against the militants and defame them.

He said Afghan forces were unable to retake control of Kunduz City as their reinforcements coming from Kabul were attacked in parts of Baghlan province.


The Imperial Demolition of the Middle East—Western ace in the hole

[The author of the following does an excellent job of laying-out the primary strands of the Middle East knot.  The architects of the “Arab Spring” understood these strands and many more, giving them intimate knowledge of the primary “buttons” to be pushed, in order to set the Middle East on fire.  This is what the amazing CIA psywarriors did, by intention, NOT by accident. 

The problem has been in getting Western leaders to admit that their policies have been wrong since the beginning of the terror war, following policies which multiplied terrorism wherever US counter-terrorism took hold.  It is not just that Obama’s policies which have been misguided, because he has continued to follow the same Pentagon policies which managed Bush’s war.  American policies in general, since 2001, have been to tear countries apart, without consideration for what would come next. 

Now that the contradictions between America’s words and actions have become apparent to the people of the world, popular opinion is turning against the Empire, breaking the American global dictatorship (new world order).  Next comes worldwide realization that this has all been intentional, NOT by accident, or through a series of devastating mistakes.  The objective of the “Arab Spring” has always been to create chaos throughout the Muslim world, to be achieved through total destruction.

Convincing Western leaders to admit that the demolition of the existing order has been intentional all along will prove to be an existential struggle for anyone willing to make the attempt to reason with power.  The power elite can never admit that their objective has been to sow chaos in foreign lands, because doing so would create conscious linkage to our own Nation’s internal demolition.  We stand a better chance of witnessing a global realization about American intentions to create disorder, than we do of seeing changes arising from within.  It has now become clear to the rest of humanity that there has been NO real “regime change,” only regime destruction. The world is about to rightfully blame America for everything

The emergence of new, more rational world leadership comes in the person of Vladimir Putin.  Screams of outrage and urgency immediately rise-up against him from the usual warmongering crowd, while a hushed silence descends upon the rest of the world, where saner minds join together to pray, once more, for WORLD PEACE.  Putting an end to the Imperial destruction of Syria, Libya and Yemen is the first step towards finding that lasting peace in the Middle East.]


The Roots of Conflict in the Middle East 


Only rule of law and a culture of diversity can overthrow autocracy and religious fundamentalism in the Middle East.

One fundamental problem for Middle Eastern countries is that a majority of the rulers are illegitimate. While each country has its own history and trajectory, common patterns prevail across the region: Those in power have not received their positions from a fair and transparent electoral process. They see themselves as above the law and misuse their absolute power.

These autocrats act as a guardian of the people or treat them as an enemy. Sets of tribal and religious convictions replace law in many countries in the Middle East and North Africa, and power is fundamentally linked to tribalism or religion.

How have power struggles, religious conflict, discrimination, security issues, colonialism and Western hegemony, values and intervention shaped the Middle East? This author spoke to PhD students, academics and university lecturers to learn more.

Muhammad Waladbagi, a PhD candidate at Durham University working on Turkey-Iraqi Kurdistan relations, states that the modern history of the Middle East has witnessed frequent interstate wars, numerous revolutions, coup d’états, civil wars and economic problems:

“These are signs of fundamental problems in the region’s political culture that at times has set the ruling regimes against their people. It is quite difficult to identify and explain the reasons behind such phenomena in a few sentences as the origins of the problems differ in each specific case, and Middle Eastern states are not homogeneous as they have many differences.”

The role of religion

The feeling of attachment to tribalism and fake patriotism under the umbrella of religion is stronger and more apparent than respect for human rights and pluralism in the Middle East. Patriotism is used as a tool to accumulate wealth and oppress the rights of minorities, while religion and tribalism are often militarized, making the use of violence legitimate and normal.

Sabir Hasan, a lecturer at the University of Human Development and a PhD student at the University of Leeds, says religion—specifically Islam—is an inseparable part of Middle Eastern society, and it is one of the most influential domains of Kurdish social life:

“It is not surprising that different tribal and so-called patriotic groups resort to religion to gain legacy and popularity. As for ‘fake patriotism’, as you termed it, we need a simple glance at the contemporary history of Middle Eastern regimes, including Kurdistan, to see what abuses and scandals have been committed in the name of patriotism. It is axiomatic that those who first claimed to be loyal patriots have eventually become millionaires, all at the expense of the public. Those who misuse religion and patriotism can be regarded, at best, as opportunists.” 

In a region where exchange of power often causes destruction and chaos, the psychology of the rulers is structured in such a way that they consider themselves to always be right, thus there is no need for an election. Humans are not seen as humans, but as either friend or foe. Ironically, one has to act like an enemy to be a friend and a friend to be an enemy. That is to say, one has to be the enemy of freedom to be the friend of an oppressor, and to be a protector of an oppressor to be the enemy of democracy.

Middle East

Power struggles

Analyzing the issue of power struggles from a psychoanalytic perspective, Mohammed Akoi, an assistant lecturer in Raparin University in Sulaymaniyah, says:

“Sigmund Freud talks in detail about the Oedipus complex; that is, the unconscious rivalry between the father and the son. I see a similar type of complex when it comes to rulers in the Middle East. There is a myth in Kurdish folklore that could say a lot about father-son rivalry in the Middle-Eastern context.

“The story goes that a father, after having lost all his sons but one, arranges a wedding for his last son, Saidawan. As the party ends, Saidawan goes hunting to the mountains, and so does his father. Saidawan dresses in a wild goat’s clothing in order to attract other goats and thus hunt them. His father, on the other hand, seeing a supposed wild goat and not knowing it is his son in disguise, kills him and thus loses his last son.

“The story is often told as a tragic misfortune on the part of the father. However, approaching the incident from a Freudian interpretation, it is the father who kills his son unconsciously. Much has been said about the Middle Eastern father as an example of divine authority who is always there to punish the son.”

Akoi argues that rulers in the Middle East play the role of a typical superior who enjoys the authority of the father. Therefore, it comes as no surprise that democracy, the product of Western consciousness, always fails to shake the Middle Eastern father’s position.

The dictators of Middle Eastern countries see armed struggle as a pathway to their eternal need for power. Instead of promoting coexistence, they embrace war and military confrontation; instead of building legitimate institutions, they destroy the country’s infrastructure; and instead of organizing an inclusive, lawful military force, they establish militia units for the sake of adding fuel to the sectarian disputes. This paves the way for the dictators to remain in power as long as they want or until they are forcefully deposed.

For Sarkawt Shamsulddin, a political analyst at the Kurdish Policy Foundation specializing in governance and security and NRT TV’s bureau chief in Washington DC, two issues are of pivotal importance: the abuse of religion and a lack of good governance. The focus here is on governance.

“The rulers in the Middle East have been oppressing their people for decades and they have used different means to do so, such as undermining human rights, democracy, freedom of speech and civil society as a whole. They have undermined opposition groups. They have mostly invested in military and security institutions. Therefore, when revolutions or what is called the ‘Arab Spring’ emerged, they use their military capability to stay in power.”  

In the underdeveloped countries of the Middle East, security and military forces are dominated and ruled by tribal chiefs and religious figures. Infringement of political rights is authorized through elastic rules, and the confiscation of democratic values is fallaciously considered a religious duty. The public sphere is in total chaos, and the government has too much influence through the media, economy, education and even on the private lives of the people. This abuse of power has become an inherent part of governments’ mechanism to uproot any kind of freedom—be it freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of conscience or freedom of the press.

Zubir Rasool, a PhD candidate of Middle East politics at the University of Exeter, argues that there are numerous problematic issues that can contribute to the structure of current conflict in the Middle East. The main issue in this regard has to do with the structure of the so-called “nation-state” on the one hand, and its political, social and economic functions on the other hand.

“The evolution of the nation-state did not come from a natural process in the Middle East. Large groups of Middle Eastern countries were the results of colonial operations—whether it was from the Ottoman Empire or European colonialism. Both of these historical moments’ legacies share a responsibility for the creative chaos in the Middle East nowadays. The terms nation-building or state-building was just a figurative cover for the combination of different ethnic, tribal, linguistic and cultural identities. The legacy of the Ottoman Empire is based on the distinction between Muslims and non-Muslims; also, non-Muslims were divided among their ethnicities and religious sects.”

The middle-class has deteriorated and the professional workforce is almost non-existent. A lack of public facilities, low income and high unemployment keep people frustrated. A lack of food quality and stable electricity, poor health care and stagnant education keep people over-occupied and struggling. This way, people do not have the means to revolt. They are more occupied with providing the basic needs to survive, let alone the strenuous dangers of migration and the perpetual challenges of resettlement, identity, discrimination and cultural integration.


Ramyar Hassani, a human rights observer in Latin America, Europe and Kurdistan, says that in a Middle East that is burning because of sectarian wars and extremist organizations, being a refugee has become a normal phenomenon.

“On the one hand, the proxy wars of regional powers have forced thousands of Middle Easterners to flee and leave everything behind. On the other hand, the wrong policies of Western and world powers led the Middle East into a clash of extremists, which resulted in thousands of refugees [heading] to a safer country [and] dreaming of a life without violence.”

With that in mind, whenever there is a revolution, the faces change, but the mentalities are the same. That is to say, a new despotic clan will take over power, establishing the same sort of mechanism to replace and then rule in the same manner as the ousted autocrat. Each clan or tribe controls a certain territory with their own armed force and militia in hand and their own rules in place.

That being said, constitutional legitimacy is threatened by political outbidding and revolution. The legitimate exchange or handover of power and social justice are vulnerable in the face of political and economic corruption, which is why disorder, instability and war have always been part of the autocrat’s culture and mentality.

Sherko Kirmanj, a visiting senior lecturer at the University of Utara Malaysia and the author of Identity and Nation in Iraq, believes the question of legitimacy is one problem that faces the Middle East.

“One of the major problems confronting Middle Eastern societies is that the process of modernity in the region is not home-grown, but rather an imposed one. Modernity with all its dimensions and outcomes, including the nation-state, secularism, democratization, freedom, etc, were alien concepts introduced into Middle Eastern societies in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The introduction of these concepts and the values that embrace such equality, justice, fairness, freedom of speech and freedom of religion—just to name a few—led to a clash with local and traditional values of these societies.”

In the End

Western leaders and institutions have a limited understanding and familiarity with Middle Eastern societies, cultures and politics. This often leads to a focus on increasing arms and ammunition supplies and offering military training, especially in times of a violent insurgency, instead of the much-needed humanitarian, educational and developmental aid. This creates an ongoing cycle, wherein whoever has the most military strength holds power and steps into the same pattern of governmental rule.

What has blinded the West is the age-old misconception that Middle Eastern societies are anti-civil society, anti-democracy and anti-multiculturalism. This thinking leads to the conclusion that these societies are doomed to remain in bloodshed, where the best treatment is the importing of more and more weapons. This approach fails to address the root problems and instead contributes to the cycle of violence.

The West must realize that the real danger lies in the empowerment of religious fanatics and systemic corruption that have replaced true critical thinking, quality education and effective institutions.

By publishing and glamorizing radical groups’ propaganda on media platforms such as YouTube, the West can demonstrate how significant a culture of diversity and rule of law is for consolidating democracy. These two elements—rule of law and a culture of diversity—are the only means through which autocracy and religious fundamentalism can be overthrown.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit: Robert Hale /

Aras Ahmed MhamadAras Ahmed Mhamad is a freelance journalist and regular contributor for Fair Observer.

Russian Navy Moves Floating Workshop from Black Sea To Tartous Port Russian Black Sea Fleet’s floating workshop PM-56 will depart in early October for the Syrian port of Tartous, the location of a Russian Navy logistics and supply center, a source in the Russian Navy Staff told Interfax-AVN on Monday.

“The PM-56 under the command of Capt. 2nd Rank Igor Bakuradze [Reserve] had a trial voyage today to prepare for the long-distance trip to the Mediterranean Sea. The floating workshop will move to the Sevastopol outer harbor on October 1 and will begin its voyage to Tartous then,” he said.

The PM-56 crew will repair and service ships and vessels of the Russian Navy task force permanently deployed in the Mediterranean, he said.

As reported earlier, the Moskva missile cruiser under the command of Guard Capt. 1st Rank Alexander Shvarts has departed for the Mediterranean Sea. The Smetlivy destroyer under the command of Capt. 2nd Rank Andrei Zaitsev and the Pytlivy frigate under the command of Capt 2nd Rank Dmitry Dobrynsky are interacting with the missile cruiser.

Vladimir Putin Speech at the UN General Assembly–(9/27/2015, TRANSCRIPT)

Putin – the instigators of the Syrian crisis, “Do you realize what you’ve done?” 

Komsomolskaya Pravda  Komsomolskaya Pravda

Vladimir Putin spoke at the UN General Assembly.

Putin – the instigators of the Syrian crisis, “Do you realize what you’ve done?”

“Komsomolskaya Pravda” published the full transcript of the speech of the Russian president to the UN General Assembly
– Dear Mr. President, Dear Mr. Secretary General, Distinguished Heads of State and Government, Ladies and Gentlemen. 70th anniversary of the United Nations – a good reason to appeal to history and to talk about our common future.

In 1945, the country, the defeat of Nazism, have joined forces to lay the solid foundations of the postwar world order. Let me remind you that the key decisions on the principles of interaction between states, the decision to create the United Nations adopted in our country at the Yalta meeting of leaders of the anti-Hitler coalition. Yalta system was actually suffered, paid tens of millions of people, the two world wars that swept through the world in the twentieth century. And, let’s be objective, it has helped mankind to pass through the turbulent and sometimes dramatic events of the past seven decades, has kept the world of large-scale shocks.

UN – the structure, which has no equal. On legitimacy, representativeness and universality. Yes, to the United Nations in recent hear a lot of criticism. Allegedly, she demonstrates the lack of effectiveness and the principal decision rests against the insurmountable contradictions. First and foremost among the members of the Security Council. However, I want to note that the differences in the United Nations has always been, throughout the 70 years of the organization. And the veto power is always applied. It was used, and the United States, and Britain, France and China, and the Soviet Union, later – Russian. It is quite natural for such a diverse and representative organization. At the founding of the UN and not expected that there will be unanimity prevail. The essence of the organization, in fact, is to find and develop compromises, and its power – in the account of different opinions and points of view. Discussed at the UN agreed solutions in the form of resolutions or agreed. As diplomats say, pass or not pass. And all the actions of any of bypassing this order are illegitimate and contrary to the Charter of the United Nations, contemporary international law.

We all know that after the Cold War, everyone knows that in the world there was only one center of domination. And then those who are at the top of the pyramid, there is a temptation to think that if they are so strong and exceptional, it is best placed to know what to do. And so – no need to reckon with the UN, which is often, instead of automatically authorize, legitimize the right solution, but prevents, so to speak, as we say, “underfoot.” There was talk that the organization in the form in which it was created, LLC, has fulfilled its historic mission.

Of course, the world is changing. And the United Nations must comply with this natural transformation. Russia on the basis of broad consensus is ready for this work on the further development of the United Nations with all partners. But we believe attempts to undermine the credibility and legitimacy of the United Nations is extremely dangerous. This can lead to the collapse of the entire architecture of international relations. Then we really will not have any rules, except the right of the strong. It will be a world in which, instead of teamwork will dominate selfishness. A world in which there will be more and dictate less equity, less real democracy and freedom. The world in which together truly independent states will multiply the number of actual protectorates controlled from outside the territories.

After all, what is the state sovereignty, which is already colleagues said? This is primarily a matter of freedom, free choice of their destiny for each person, for the people, for the state. By the way, colleagues, in the same row and the question of the so-called legitimacy of the government. You can not play and manipulate words. In international law, in international affairs, each term should be clear, transparent, should have a common understanding and uniformly understood criteria.

We are all different. And this should be treated with respect. No one is required to adapt to a model of development, recognized someone once and only correct one. All of us should not forget past experiences. For example, we remember and examples from the history of the Soviet Union. Export of social experiments, attempts to spur changes in various countries on the basis of their ideological, often led to tragic consequences.

It does not lead to progress, but to degradation. However, no one seems to learn from others’ mistakes, but only repeating them. And the export of revolution, now the so-called democracies, continues.

Just look at the situation in the Middle East and North Africa, as mentioned by the previous speaker. Of course, political and social problems in the region had been brewing for a long time, and the people there are, of course, would change. But what happened in reality? Aggressive external intervention has led to the fact that instead of the reform of public institutions, and the very way of life were just unceremoniously destroyed. Instead of the triumph of democracy and progress – violence, poverty, social disaster, and human rights, including the right to life, in what should be put. One would like to ask those who created this situation: you at least understand now what you have done? But I’m afraid this question hangs in the air. Because of the policy, which is self-confidence, the belief in its exceptionalism and impunity, and not abandoned. It is already clear that the emergence of a number of countries in the Middle East and North Africa power vacuum led to the formation of zones of anarchy, which immediately began to be filled by extremists and terrorists. Under the banner of so-called “Islamic State” is already at war, tens of thousands of militants, among them former Iraqi forces in the invasion of Iraq in 2003 were thrown out into the street. Supplier of recruits is, and Libya, whose statehood had been destroyed as a result of gross violation of the UN Security Council Resolution 1973. And now swell the ranks of radical and moderate members of the so-called Syrian opposition, supported by the West. Their first arm, train, and then they move to the side of the so-called “Islamic state.”

The very “Islamic state” did not come out of nowhere. He was also initially nurtured as a weapon against unwanted secular regimes. Establish a foothold in Syria and Iraq, “Islamic State” is actively expanding its expansion to other regions, aimed at domination in the Islamic world, and not only there. Only these plans clearly limited. The situation is more than dangerous. In this situation, hypocritical and irresponsible act with loud declarations about the threat of international terrorism and at the same time turn a blind eye to the channels of funding and support for terrorists, including those due to drug-trafficking, illegal trade in oil, arms, or try to manipulate extremist groups, put them into his service for their own political purposes in the hope of then somehow deal with them, quite simply, be eliminated.

Those who really does so and so thinks would say. Ladies and gentlemen, you are dealing, of course, a very cruel people, but not with the stupid and primitive. They are not more stupid than you, and still do not know who someone is using for their own purposes. And the latest data on the transfer of weapons that very moderate opposition to terrorists – the best evidence.
Vladimir Putin touched on many important themes in his speech.

We consider any attempts to flirt with terrorists, and even more so to arm them not only short-sighted, and a fire hazard. As a result of the global terrorist threat can increase critically, to cover new regions of the world. Especially in the camps, “the Islamic state” are run-fighters from many countries, including European. Unfortunately, I must say so, dear colleagues, and Russia is no exception. We can not allow these thugs who have already felt the smell of blood, and then returned to his home, and there continued their dirty work. We do not want that. After all, no one wants, is not it?

Russia has always firmly and consistently opposed to terrorism in all its forms. Today, we provide military and technical assistance to Iraq and Syria, the other countries in the region that are fighting terrorist groups. We consider it a huge mistake refusal to cooperate with the Syrian authorities, the government’s army, with those who courageously face to face fighting terror. We must finally acknowledge that in addition to the government forces of President Assad and Kurdish militias in Syria, with the “Islamic state” and other terrorist organizations, no one really struggling. We know all the problems of the region, all the contradictions, but still need to proceed from reality.

Dear colleagues, forced to observe that this is our honest and direct approach have recently used as a pretext to accuse Russia’s growing ambitions. Like those who spoke about it, there is no ambition at all. But is not the ambitions of Russia, colleagues, and that tolerate folding position in the world is impossible. In fact, we offer guided not by ambition, but by shared values ​​and common interests on the basis of international law, to work together to meet the challenges we face new challenges and to create a truly broad international anti-terrorist coalition. Like the anti-Hitler coalition, it could unite in their ranks a variety of forces ready to firmly confront those who, like the Nazis, sows evil and misanthropy. And, of course, key players in such a coalition should be a Muslim country. For the “Islamic state” not only bears a direct threat to them, but also for its bloody crimes defiles the world’s great religions – Islam.

The ideologists of the militant mocked Islam and distort its true humanistic values. I would like to appeal to Muslim spiritual leaders. Now it is very important and your credibility and your mentoring word. It is necessary to protect people who are trying to recruit fighters from rash steps. And for those who have been deceived, and for various reasons it ended up in the ranks of the terrorists, to help find your way to a normal life, lay down their arms, to stop the fratricidal war.

In the coming days, Russia, as the chairman of the Security Council convene a ministerial meeting for a comprehensive analysis of the threats to the area of ​​the Middle East. First of all, we propose to discuss the possibility of harmonizing the resolution on the coordination of all forces who oppose “Islamic state” and other terrorist groups. Again, such coordination should be based on the principles of the UN Charter. We hope that the international community will be able to develop a comprehensive strategy for political stability and socio-economic reconstruction of the Middle East. Then, dear friends, to build refugee camps do not have to. The flow of people forced to leave their native land, literally engulfed first the neighboring countries and then to Europe. Here comes the expense of hundreds of thousands, and can go for millions of people. It is, in fact, a new hitter great migration of peoples. And a hard lesson for all of us, including Europe.

I would like to emphasize that refugees are certainly in need of compassion and support. However, fundamentally solve this problem is possible only by restoring the state where it was destroyed by strengthening the institutions of power, where they have been preserved or recreated. By providing comprehensive assistance – military, economic, financial – find themselves in a difficult situation in the country. And, of course, those people who in spite of all the trials do not leave their homes. Of course, any assistance to sovereign states can and should not be imposed, but offered and only in accordance with the UN Charter. In short, everything that is done and will be done in this area in accordance with international law, should be supported by our organization. And all that is contrary to the UN Charter – rejected. Above all, I consider it extremely important to help rebuild state institutions in Libya, to support the new Government of Iraq, to ​​provide comprehensive assistance to the legitimate government of Syria.

Dear colleagues, the key task of the international community, led by the United Nations remains the maintenance of peace, regional and global stability. In our view, the focus should be on an area of ​​equal and indivisible security, security is not for the elite, but for all. Yes, it is a complex, difficult, long-term work, but there is no alternative. However, the bloc mentality of the Cold War and the desire to develop new geopolitical space in some of our colleagues are still, unfortunately, it dominates. First, we continued policy of expanding NATO. The question is: for what? If the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist, the Soviet Union fell apart, however, NATO is not only remains, it is still expanding. Just like its military infrastructure. Then the post-Soviet countries have put a false choice – be it to the west or the east.

Sooner or later, such a confrontational logic was to have serious geopolitical crisis. It happened in the Ukraine. Where we used the discontent of a large part of the population of the current government and externally provoked an armed coup . As a result, civil war broke out. We are convinced that to stop the bloodshed, to break the deadlock can only be fully conscientious performance of the Minsk Agreement of 12 February this year. Threats, force of arms integrity of Ukraine does not provide. But we need to do it. We need a real consideration of the interests and rights of the people in the Donbass, respect their choice. Alignment with them, as provided Minsk agreements, the key elements of the political system of the state. This is the guarantee that Ukraine will develop as a civilized state, as a key link in the construction of a common space of security and economic cooperation in Europe and Eurasia.
Nail Valiulin Photo: Nail Valiulin

Ladies and gentlemen, not casually said today about the general area of ​​economic cooperation.

Until recently it seemed that in an economy where there are objective laws of the market, we will learn to live without dividing lines, will operate on the basis of transparent rules jointly developed, including the principles of the WTO, which implies freedom of trade, investment, open competition. Today, however, almost become the norm unilateral sanctions in circumvention of the UN Charter. Not only do they pursue political goals, but also serve as a way to eliminate competitors in the market. I note another symptom of growing economic selfishness. Several countries have opted for private exclusive economic associations. Moreover, negotiations for their establishment go behind the scenes, in secret, and their citizens, from their own businesses, the public, but also from other countries. Other States, whose interests may be affected, and nothing to be informed. Probably all of us want to put before the fact, that the rules rewritten and rewritten again in favor of a narrow circle of the elect, and without the participation of the WTO.

It is fraught with a complete imbalance of the trading system, the fragmentation of the global economic space. Mentioned problems affect the interests of all States, affect the prospects of the global economy. Therefore, we propose to discuss them in the framework of the UN, the WTO and the “Group of Twenty.” In contrast to the policy of exclusivity Russia proposes harmonization of regional economic projects, the so-called integration of integration, based on universal, transparent principles of international trade. As an example, our plans for the pairing of the Eurasian Economic Union, the Chinese initiative to establish economic zones “Silk Road”. And still we see great prospects for harmonization of integration processes in the Eurasian Economic Union and the European Union.

Ladies and gentlemen, among the issues that affect the future of mankind, such a challenge as global climate change. We are interested in the effectiveness of the UN Climate Conference, to be held in December in Paris. As part of its contribution to the national plan by 2030 to limit greenhouse gas emissions to 70-75% from 1990 levels. However, I take a look at this problem more widely. Yes, setting quotas for emissions using other nature tactical measures, we may be at a certain period and remove the acuteness of the problem, but it certainly will not solve it radically. We need a qualitatively different approach. It should be on the implementation of innovative, prirodopodobnyh technologies that do not cause damage to the surrounding world, and there are with him in harmony and allow the person to restore the disturbed balance between the biosphere and the technosphere. It’s really a challenge of planetary scale. And I am convinced that the answer to it, mankind has the intellectual potential. We need to join forces, and especially those states that have a strong research base, backlog of basic science. We offer to convene under the auspices of the UN special forum for a comprehensive look at the problems associated with the depletion of natural resources, habitat destruction, climate change. Russia is ready to become one of the organizers of the forum.

Ladies and gentlemen, colleagues. January 10, 1946 in London, the first session of the UN General Assembly. Opening it, the chairman of the preparatory committee session, the Colombian diplomat Zoleto Angel, in my opinion, very succinctly formulated the principles on which to build their UN activities. This goodwill, contempt for intrigue and cunning spirit of cooperation. Today these words sound like a farewell to all of us. Russia believes in the tremendous potential of the United Nations, which should help to avoid a new global confrontation and move on to the strategy of cooperation, together with other countries will work consistently for strengthening the central coordinating role of the UN. I am convinced that working together, we will make the world stable and safe, to ensure conditions for the development of all countries and peoples.

Thank you for your attention.