By Rostislav Ishchenko
Translated by Ollie Richardson and Angelina Siard
cross posted with http://www.stalkerzone.org/rostislav-ishchenko-67-countries-regret-that-there-are-no-fascists-in-crimea/
source: https://ukraina.ru/opinion/20181116/1021786775.html
The UN is a complicated structure, called on to satisfy the ambitions of everyone (both small and big), at the same time preserving the right of the five permanent members of the Security Council to accept (or reject, if a consensus is reached between them) of a final decision.
In this regard, except the binding resolutions that are adopted by the Security Council, there is a format of resolutions of the General Assembly that have only a moral-political character. It is rare that someone implements them, but they are often used within the framework of information campaigns. It is written that supposedly the UN demanded it, that the UN stated it, that the UN obliged, and the most honest say “the world community expressed its opinion”. Overall, if the General Assembly adopts a negative resolution on your question, then it’s nothing serious, but it is unpleasant (it is difficult to swallow).
But in the UN thousands of diplomats representing 193 states work. But in the Security Council there are only 15 members. Plenary sessions of the General Assembly with the participation of top officials, or at least Ministers of Foreign Affairs, take place rather seldom — one-two times per year. Meanwhile, diplomats of the states that aren’t represented in the rather regular gatherings of the Security Council also need to be engaged in something in order to feel that they participate in the development of decisions having global importance.
For this purpose the General Assembly founded committees. Two of them – the General Committee and the Credentials Committee – have technical value concerning the preparation of the sessions of the General Assembly. The other six main committees are consolatory platforms in which discussions that are formally important but don’t have operational value are carried out, and where the same kind of resolutions are being adopted. As a rule, not only in the state, but even in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs – and if the representation in the UN is big (like it is, for example, for Russia), then in the representation too – not everyone knows what problems are solved by the diplomats who are busied in a specific committee.
I once happened to participate in the work of similar committees, commissions, and working groups in the OSCE. Their powers were more essential than the powers of the UN General Assembly Committees. They prepared and previously agreed on resolutions, which then were submitted for the consideration of the Permanent Council under the leadership of the acting chairperson, who makes binding decisions in between top-level summits and meetings of Ministers of Foreign Affairs within the limits of their powers. But committees and working groups don’t make binding decisions. That’s why you can argue for months about where in the resolution there has to be a comma, or you can ignore discussion. So then the main fight will be just transferred to the level of the Permanent Council.
In principle, in both the OSCE and the UN the work of committees have a utilitarian function. You have the opportunity to in advance become acquainted with the wishes and argument of opponents, to fulfil your arguments, and also to evaluate the level of support (yours and your opponent’s). The difference is only that in the OSCE after the working groups documents are taken for consideration by the structure making the binding decision, while in the UN, even if after the Committee the question will be submitted for the consideration of the General Assembly and a resolution will subsequently be adopted in relation to it, it won’t have a binding character. I.e., in this case we are dealing with pure statistics (how many countries supported the resolution, how many rejected it, and how many abstained). If the question is being considered regularly, then it is possible to study statistics in terms of their dynamics: how the ratio of forces changes over the years.
On November 15th the UN General Assembly’s Third Committee (Social, Cultural, and Humanitarian issues) adopted two resolutions at the same time. One of them is a resolution against the glorification of Nazism — which has been submitted by Russia and its coauthors since 2005. This year the draft resolution was submitted on behalf of 39 countries. 130 countries supported the resolution and 51 countries abstained. Only the US and Ukraine voted against it. This result distinctly shows the isolated position of these two countries and testifies that at least in this aspect their position is in a conflict with the position of the entire world community. The US in such cases likes to speak about outcast countries and to impose sanctions. However, they can impose sanctions even without a reason.
The second resolution was submitted by Ukraine, which introduced it for the third year in a row. The resolution condemns the cases of human rights violations that were allegedly recorded on the territory of Crimea. During the consideration of this resolution the majority (87 countries) abstained, 67 delegations supported Ukraine, and 26 delegations voted against. In comparison with last year, the dynamics for Ukraine are negative. In 2017 three delegations more supported a similar resolution.
But what’s important here isn’t dynamics. Of course, it is pleasant that every year we [Russia – ed] are supported by more and more countries, and the US and Ukraine are supported by fewer and fewer countries, and they in general become outcasts concerning certain questions. However, as I already said above, all of this committee’s fight has a rather conditional practical value. Yes, it is possible to note that Russian diplomats don’t twiddle their thumbs in the UN. They work with foreign delegations and gradually obtain a change in the ratio of forces in Russia’s advantage. But it is even more important that no diplomat – even the most talented one – could tilt the balance in our advantage if it wasn’t for the growth of the international authority of Russia and the sharp decrease in the possibilities and influence of the US.
However, in reality all of us see this almost every day with increasing vividity than just within the framework of the specific work of UN committees. But what for sure doesn’t happen every day (we can count on the same thing happening only in a year’s time, when these resolutions will again be simultaneously considered) is a bright demonstration of the lameness of the position of Ukraine and the countries supporting it. The adoption of these resolutions back-to-back, in one day, illustrated as clearly as possible that a country supporting Nazism is worried about human rights in Crimea. I.e., Ukraine and those who supported it voted to ensure the rights of nazis in Crimea.
It is precisely this that follows from the results of the two votes, because regardless of how much Ukraine and the US claim that the anti-nazi resolution is politically charged, in reality there was nothing in the formulations that would go beyond the condemnation of the nazi ideology and its political practice. It is impossible to take this resolution and apply it randomly to an actual situation in a specific country. I.e., it doesn’t bear any political or information threat to Ukraine or the US. On the contrary, in order to so blatantly expose themselves by voting against and opposing the whole world – which is what Kiev and Washington did, their love for nazis has to be extremely strong.
I think that with such “qualified” work, in a year’s time the results of voting on both resolutions will be even worse for the US and Ukraine. This is if, of course, the relevance of the resolution on Crimea will remain, because it can so happen that there won’t be anybody to submit it.
Naziism is well-cared for by the U.S. government. It has been nurtured, protected, bred, spread and armed. From before WWII, during and afterward, the U.S. has been the protector of Naziism. Croatia, Greece, Ukraine and the resorts of Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay and Brazil all have a rich history during these nine decades of U.S. beneficence toward fascist ideology, especially Naziism.
So, Ukraine has come to full blossom and fruitfulness as the current garden of horrors. Proudly, the U.S., like a parent, protects its off-spring, the demented Ukies, and guides them with monetary and military rewards.
Ahead is the inevitable clash (war) that the world will have to wage to crush, once again, the madness of racial and ethnic hatred and the violence of such an ideological cult of sadists.
Votes in the UN will have quaint historical notice then. Who voted for or against will not alter the great event needed to crush the Nazis. It will be a footnote to man’s insanity and loss of moral authority.
The U.S. is the generator of the revival of Bandera. Ukraine’s crimes are attached at the hip to the U.S.
It is as simple as their unifying initials OUN. Just put an O in front of the UN and Naziism lives and thrives again.
What needs to happen is the expulsion of Nazi regimes from the UN. Isolate and sanction from the UNSC.
And if the U.S. obstructs, isolate them. They are as close to fascist as any regime. And have been for nine decades.
Back when the US was screaming about foreign leaders who might go to Moscow to celebrate the victory over Hitler and the Nazis, I noticed that the US does not hold any sort of large parade or big celebration to mark the defeat of the Nazis. For all the talk about how that was the Greatest Generation and how every target for invasion is the next Hitler, it seems odd that the day Hitler shot himself in his Berlin bunker isn’t really even noticed in America.
Now the US is one of only two countries that vote against a resolution against the glorification of Nazis. They didn’t abstain, but actively opposed it.
I suppose that in the long run its Prescott Bush and Herbert Walker who won he argument over hated American liberals such as FDR. (for those who don’t know American history, Prescott Bush was an aide to Herbert Walker and they strongly supported the Nazis. There is a 1943 federal order that they must stop trading with the enemy. Prescott Bush so admired Herbert Walker that he named his son George Herbert Walker Bush.)
“…I noticed that the US does not hold any sort of large parade or big celebration to mark the defeat of the Nazis”.
That’s because they played so small a part in the defeat of the Nazis. They waited until the struggle was decided, then rushed in and stabbed the Germans in the back while they were fighting for their lives against the Red Army.
Their main contribution was to grab the western parts of the Reich and loot them thoroughly. But then you wouldn’t expect Americans to do anything that wouldn’t show a large profit.
Rostislav Ishchenko is a very good and competent expert. I always listen and watch his performances with pleasure. He understands the situation in Ukraine in detail (perhaps, the best expert on Ukraine in Russia), but he’s also able to give intelligent commentary on many other international issues. Very good and highly educated expert.
The topic of voting on the “against the glorification of Nazism” resolution is curious. For at least 10 years, the United States has been stubbornly voting against this resolution, thus, in fact, supporting/justifying Nazism. Ukraine usually preferred to abstain, but since 2014 (after the coup d’etat), Ukraine began to warmly support the United States and vote against this resolution. Not surprising.
By the way, I consider the topic of “against the glorification of Nazism” resolution in my new big post on the tendencies of the revival of Nazism. Please feel free to check it out, maybe you will find something new for yourself: Thanks.
Here’s an image posted by someone else in another article thread that illustrates in a graphic manner who supports this UN resolution against the glorification of Nazism, and who opposes it explicitly or implicitly.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DsPX4kGXcAE1UNl.jpg
It is really amazing in terms of the breakdown of the vote on this anti-Nazi resolution that the vast majority of the self-proclaimed “Free World” either directly oppose this anti-Nazi resolution or tacitly oppose it by abstention. This includes “democratic” European nations, Japan, South Korea, as well as the Anglo Axis nations led by the Land of the Free itself, the USA.
On the other hand, the vast majority of the non-Western world (many of whom America, Europe and the Free World self-righteously vilify as authoritarian tyrannies) support this anti-Nazi resolution.
This vote reveals much about malign nature of the oh-so-morally righteous Free World.
The irony of this is that Germany abstained. Yet, Germany puts anyone in a maximum security jail cell from anywhere in the world in jail for up to 5 years for the questioning the tiniest speck of MSM’s “set in stone” details of the H. Ernst Zundel, Canadian citizen was put in 5 years in a maximum security jail cell for questioning MSM’s “set in stone” details of the H. Two Canadian citizens have recently been put in a maximum security jail cell for questioning MSM’s “set in stone” details of the big H. Monika Schaefer, a Canadian citizen, came to Germany to see the trial of Sylvia Stolz. Sylvia Stolz, was the lawyer for Ernst Zundel. She did too good a job for Zundel. Her crime was the “investigation of real facts”. Monika was grabbed by the German police while watching the Sylvia Stolz trial. She was put in maximum security prison without any protests from Canada or anywhere in the world. Her brother was grabbed at the same time. He has been living in Germany for the past few years. He is now in jail for a sentence of three years. There have been thousands of people put in jail in Germany for this. Germany is a very dangerous country to go if one may have questioned MSM’s “set in stone” details of the big H anytime in your life. Germany is playing forked tongue for the US. Nazism is OK if the US tells it that it is such as this vote at the UN. Yet, Germany grabs anyone from anywhere in the world that enters its territory and throws them in a maximum security jail cell for questioning the tiniest speck of the details of MSM’s “set in stone” big H.
”The adoption of these resolutions back-to-back, in one day, illustrated as clearly as possible that a country supporting Nazism is worried about human rights in Crimea. I.e., Ukraine and those who supported it voted to ensure the rights of nazis in Crimea.”
Exactly. Try to imagine the carnival of pitch black fascist reaction had Crimea become a NATO base thanks to the Ukronazis. The latters’ vitriol against Crimea right in the wake of the Maidan amounted to no idle threats. The Russians in Crimea would have been treated like the inhabitants of Diego Garcia in the 1960s with the entire Western MSM swamp in a state of hateful, overwhelming joy. ”Illegal annexation” is in the eye of the beholder, mind you.
The US most certainly should indeed be against aforesaid resolution. Nazism is the spawn of Americanism, period.
Correction:
Nazism is the spawn of the British.Geopoliticians Plan for Dividing and Conquering “The World Island” Eurasia as key to dominating the whole planet………with a conscious global geopolitical plan as the brains directing the brawn of the “Commonwealth” of their current and past possessions .even India, to a degree….. and half of American “colonials” have always been Anglo-Pheely-Pheely Royal-ass-kissing retards, like many “elites” in the Sub-continent who admire The Empire That Taught Them How To Stay Perched Where They Are: On top
The other half of Americans don’t know much history and don’t know what to think….except. :”We’re good aren’t we? Of Course we’re good. We have to be! People from all over DO want to come here….still, don’t they????”
But there are a growing number of people who are sorting a lot of this out….all over the world.
Necessity is The Mother Of Invention ….and to an increasing degree a growing number of persons everywhere is realizing ANOTHER British instigated World War may not be something to sleep walk into……. a third time.