These days, the 74th session of the United Nations General Assembly opens up. So does a new international “political season”.
The session begins at a highly symbolic historical moment. Next year we will celebrate two great and interconnected anniversaries – the 75th Anniversary of the Victory in the Great Patriotic and Second World Wars, and the establishment of the UN.
Reflecting on the spiritual and moral significance of these landmark events, one needs to bear in mind the enormous political meaning of the Victory that ended one of the most brutal wars in the history of mankind.
The defeat of fascism in 1945 had fundamentally affected the further course of world history and created conditions for establishing a post-war world order. The UN Charter became its bearing frame and a key source of international law to this day. The UN-centric system still preserves its sustainability and has a great degree of resilience. It actually is kind of a safety net that ensures peaceful development of mankind amid largely natural divergence of interests and rivalries among leading powers. The War-time experience of ideology-free cooperation of states with different socioeconomic and political systems is still highly relevant.
It is regrettable that these obvious truths are being deliberately silenced or ignored by certain influential forces in the West. Moreover, some have intensified attempts at privatizing the Victory, expunging from memory the Soviet Union’s role in the defeat of Nazism, condemning to oblivion the Red Army’s feat of sacrifice and liberation, forgetting the many millions of Soviet citizens who perished during the War, wiping out from history the consequences of the ruinous policy of appeasement. From this perspective, it is easy to grasp the essence of the concept of expounding the equality of the totalitarian regimes. Its purpose is not just to belittle the Soviet contribution to the Victory, but also to retrospectively strip our country of its historic role as an architect and guarantor of the post-war world order, and label it a “revisionist power” that is posing a threat to the well-being of the so-called free world.
Interpreting the past in such a manner also means that some of our partners see the establishment of a transatlantic link and the permanent implanting of the US military presence in Europe as a major achievement of the post-war system of international relations. This is definitely not the scenario the Allies had in mind while creating the United Nations.
The Soviet Union disintegrated; the Berlin Wall, which had symbolically separated the two “camps,” fell; the irreconcilable ideological stand-off that defined the framework of world politics in virtually all spheres and regions became a thing of the past – yet, these tectonic shifts unfortunately failed to bring the triumph of a unifying agenda. Instead, all we could hear were triumphant pronouncements that the “end of history” had come and that from now on there would be only one global decision-making center.
It is obvious today that efforts to establish a unipolar model have failed. The transformation of the world order has become irreversible. New major players wielding a sustainable economic base seek to increase their influence on regional and global developments; they are fully entitled to claim a greater role in the decision-making process. There is a growing demand for more just and inclusive system. The overwhelming majority of members of the international community reject arrogant neocolonial policies that are employed all over again to empower certain countries to impose their will on others.
All that is greatly disturbing to those who for centuries have been accustomed to setting the patterns of global development by employing exclusive advantages. While the majority of states aspire to a more just system of international relations and genuine rather than declarative respect for the UN Charter principles, these demands come up against the policies desighned to preserve an order allowing a narrow group of countries and transnational corporations to reap from the fruits of globalization. The West’s response to the ongoing developments reveals true worldview of its proponents. Their rhetoric on liberalism, democracy and human rights goes hand in hand with the policies of inequality, injustice, selfishness and a belief in their own exceptionalism.
“Liberalism”, that the West claims to defend, focuses on individuals and their rights and freedoms. This begs the question: how does this correlate with the policy of sanctions, economic strangulation and overt military threats against a number of independent countries such as Cuba, Iran, Venezuela, North Korea or Syria? Sanctions directly strike at ordinary people and their well-being and violate their social and economic rights. How does the bombing of sovereign nations, the deliberate policy of destroying their statehood leading to the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives and condemning millions of Iraqis, Libyans, Syrians and representatives of other peoples to innumerable suffering add up to the imperative of protecting human rights? The reckless Arab Spring gamble destroyed the unique ethnic and religious mosaic in the Middle East and North Africa.
In Europe, the proponents of liberal concepts get along quite well with massive violations of the Russian-speaking population rights in a number of EU and EU-neighboring countries. Those countries violate multilateral international conventions by adopting laws that infringe language and education rights of ethnic minorities.
What is “liberal” about visa denials and other sanctions imposed by the West on residents of Russia’s Crimea? They are punished for their democratic vote in favour of reunification with their historical homeland. Does this not contradict the basic right of the people to free self-determination, let alone the right of the citizens to freedom of movement enshrined in international conventions?
Liberalism, or rather its real undistorted essence, has always been an important component of political philosophy both in Russia and worldwide. However, the multiplicity of development models does not allow us to say that the Western “basket” of liberal values has no alternative. And, of course, these values cannot be carried “on bayonets” – ignoring the history of states, their cultural and political identities. Grief and destruction caused by “liberal” aerial bombings are a clear indication of what this can lead to.
The West’s unwillingness to accept today’s realities, when after centuries of economic, political and military domination it is losing the prerogative of being the only one to shape the global agenda, gave rise to the concept of a “rules-based order.” These “rules” are being invented and selectively combined depending on the fleeting needs of the people behind it, and the West persistently introduces this language into everyday usage. The concept is by no means abstract and is actively being implemented. Its purpose is to replace the universally agreed international legal instruments and mechanisms with narrow formats, where alternative, non-consensual methods for resolving various international problems are developed in circumvention of a legitimate multilateral framework. In other words, the expectation is to usurp the decision-making process on key issues.
The intentions of those who initiated this “rules-based order” concept affect the exceptional powers of the UN Security Council. A recent example: when the United States and its allies failed to convince the Security Council to approve politicized decisions that accused, without any proof, the Syrian government of using prohibited toxic substances, they started to promote the “rules” they needed through the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). By manipulating the existing procedures in flagrant violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention, they managed (with the votes of a minority of the countries participating in this Convention) to license the OPCW Technical Secretariat to identify those responsible for the use of chemical weapons, which was a direct intrusion in the prerogatives of the UN Security Council. One can also observe similar attempts to “privatize” the secretariats of international organizations in order to advance interests outside of the framework of universal intergovernmental mechanisms in such areas as biological non-proliferation, peacekeeping, prevention of doping in sports and others.
The initiatives to regulate journalism seeking to suppress media freedom in an arbitrary way, the interventionist ideology of “responsibility to protect”, which justifies violent “humanitarian interventions” without UN Security Council approval under the pretext of an imminent threat to the safety of civilians are part of the same policy.
Separately, attention should be paid to the controversial concept of “countering violent extremism”, which lays the blame for the dissemination of radical ideologies and expansion of the social base of terrorism on political regimes that the West has proclaimed undemocratic, illiberal or authoritarian. This concept provides for direct outreach to civil society over the head of legitimate governments. Obviously, the true goal is to withdraw counterterrorism efforts from beneath the UN umbrella and to obtain a tool of interference in the internal affairs of states.
The introduction of such new concepts is a dangerous phenomenon of revisionism, which rejects the principles of international law embodied in the UN Charter and paves the way back to the times of confrontation and antagonism. It is for a reason that the West is openly discussing a new divide between “the rules-based liberal order” and “authoritarian powers.”
Revisionism clearly manifests itself in the area of strategic stability. The US torpedoing first the ABM Treaty and now the INF Treaty (a decision that enjoys unanimous NATO members’ support) have generated risks of dismantling the entire architecture of nuclear arms control agreements. The prospects of the Treaty on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (The New START) are vague – because the US has not given a clear answer to the Russian proposal to agree to extend the New START beyond its expiry date in February 2021.
Now we are witnessing alarming signs that a media campaign in the United States is being launched to lay the groundwork for abandoning the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (which has not been ratified by the United States). This calls into question the future of this treaty, which is vital for international peace and security. Washington has embarked upon the implementation of its plans to deploy weapons in outer space, rejecting proposals to agree on a universal moratorium on such activities.
There is one more example of introducing revisionist “rules”: the US withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on Iran’s nuclear program, a multilateral agreement approved by the UN Security Council that is of key importance for the nuclear non-proliferation.
Yet another example is Washington’s open refusal to implement unanimous UN Security Council resolutions on the settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
In the economic field, the “rules” consist of protectionist barriers, sanctions, abuse of the status of the US dollar as the principle means of payment, ensuring competitive advantages by non-market methods, and extraterritorial use of US laws, even towards the United States’ closest allies.
At the same time, our American colleagues are persistently trying to mobilise all of their foreign partners to contain Russia and China. Simultaneously they do not conceal their wish to sow discord between Moscow and Beijing and undermine multilateral alliances and regional integration projects in Eurasia and Asia-Pacific that are operating outside of the US oversight. Pressure is exerted on those countries that do not play by the rules imposed on them and dare make the “wrong choice” of cooperating with US “adversaries”.
So, what do we have as a result? In politics, erosion of the international legal basis, growth of instability and unsustainability, chaotic fragmentation of the global landscape and deepening mistrust between those involved in the international life. In the area of security, blurring of the dividing line between military and non-military means of achieving foreign policy goals, militarization of international relations, increased reliance on nuclear weapons in US security doctrines, lowering the threshold for the use of such armaments, the emergence of new hotbeds of armed conflicts, the persistence of the global terrorist threat, and militarization of the cyberspace. In the world economy, increased volatility, tougher competition for markets, energy resources and their supply routes, trade wars and undermining the multilateral trade system. We can add a surge of migration and deepening of ethnic and religious strife. Do we need such a “rules-based” world order?
Against this background, attempts by Western liberal ideologues to portray Russia as a “revisionist force” are simply absurd. We were among the first to draw attention to the transformation of the global political and economic systems that cannot remain static due to the objective march of history. It would be appropriate to mention here that the concept of multipolarity in international relations that accurately reflects emerging economic and geopolitical realities was formulated two decades ago by the outstanding Russian statesman Yevgeny Primakov. His intellectual legacy remains relevant now as we mark the 90th anniversary of his birth.
As is evident from the experience of recent years, using unilateral tools to address global problems is doomed to failure. The West-promoted “order” does not meet the needs of humankind’s harmonious development. This “order” is non-inclusive, aims to revise the key international legal mechanisms, rejects the principle of collective action in the relations between states, and by definition cannot generate solutions to global problems that would be viable and stable in the long term rather than seek a propaganda effect within an electoral cycle in this or that country.
What is being proposed by Russia? First of all, it is necessary to keep abreast of the times and recognise the obvious: the emergence of a polycentric world architecture is an irreversible process, no matter how hard anyone tries to artificially hold it back (let alone send it in reverse). Most countries don’t want to be held hostage to someone else’s geopolitical calculations and are determined to conduct nationally oriented domestic and foreign policies. It is our common interest to ensure that multipolarity is not based on a stark balance of power like it was at the earlier stages of human history (for example, in the 19th and the first half of the 20th century), but rather bears a just, democratic and unifying nature, takes into account the approaches and concerns of all those taking part in the international relations without an exception, and ensures a stable and secure future.
There are some people in the West who often speculate that polycentric world order inevitably leads to more chaos and confrontation because the “centers of power” will fail to come to terms among themselves and take responsible decisions. But, firstly, why not try? What if it works? For this, all that is necessary is to start talks on the understanding that the parties should seek a balance of interests. Attempts to invent ones’ own “rules” and impose them on all others as the absolute truth should be stopped. From now on, all parties should strictly comply with the principles enshrined in the UN Charter, starting with the respect for the sovereign equality of states regardless of their size, system of government or development model. Paradoxically, countries that portray themselves as paragons of democracy actually care about it only as they demand from other countries to “put their house in order” on a West-inspired pattern. But as soon as the need arises for democracy in intergovernmental relations, they immediately evade honest talk or attempt to interpret international legal norms at their own discretion.
No doubt, life does not stand still. While taking good care of the post-WWII system of international relations that relies on the United Nations, it is also necessary to cautiously though gradually adjust it to the realities of the current geopolitical landscape. This is completely relevant for the UN Security Council, where, judging by today’s standards, the West is unfairly overrepresented. We are confident that reforming the Security Council shall take into account interests of the Asian, the African and the Latin American nations whilst any such design must rest upon the principle of the broadest consensus among the UN member states. The same approach should apply to refining the world trade system, with special attention paid to harmonizing the integration projects in various regions.
We should use to the fullest the potential of the G20, an ambitious, all-encompassing global governance body that represents the interests of all key players and takes unanimous decisions. Other associations are playing a growing role as well, alliances projecting the spirit of a true and democratic multipolarity, based on voluntary participation, consensus, values of equality and sound pragmatism, and refraining from confrontation and bloc approaches. These include BRICS and the SCO, which our country is an active member of and which Russia will chair in 2020.
It is evident that without collective effort and without unbiased partnership under the central coordinating role of the UN it is impossible to curb confrontational tendencies, build up trust and cope with common threats and challenges. It is high time to come to terms on uniform interpretation of the principles and norms of international law rather than try to follow the old saying “might goes before right”. It is more difficult to broker deals than to put forward demands. But patiently negotiated trade-offs will be a much more reliable vehicle for predictable handling of international affairs. Such an approach is badly needed to launch substantive talks on the terms and conditions of a reliable and just system of equal and indivisible security in the Euro-Atlantic and Eurasia. This objective has been declared multiple times at the top level in the OSCE documents. It is necessary to move from words to deeds. The Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) and the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO) have repeatedly expressed their readiness to contribute to such efforts.
It is important to increase our assistance to the peaceful resolution of numerous conflicts, be it in the Middle East, Africa, Asia, Latin America or the post-Soviet space. The main point is to live up to the earlier arrangements rather than to invent pretexts for refusing to adhere to the obligations.
As of today, it is especially relevant to counter religious and ethnic intolerance. We urge all the nations to work together to prepare for the World Conference on Interfaith and Inter-Ethnic Dialogue that will be held in Russia in May 2022 under the auspices of the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the UN. The OSCE that has formulated a principled position condemning anti-Semitism should act with equal resolve toward Christianophobia and Islamophobia.
Our unconditional priority is to continue providing assistance to the unhindered formation of the Greater Eurasian Partnership, a broad integration framework stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific that involves the member states of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and all other countries of the Eurasian continent, including the EU countries. It would be unwise to contain the unifying processes or, worse still, to put up fences. It would be a mistake to reject the obvious strategic advantages of the common Eurasian region in an increasingly competitive world.
Consistent movement towards this constructive goal will allow us not only to keep up the dynamic development of the national economies and to remove obstacles to the movement of goods, capital, labor and services, but it will also create a solid foundation of security and stability throughout the vast region from Lisbon to Jakarta.
Will the multipolar world continue to take shape through cooperation and harmonization of interests or through confrontation and rivalry? This depends on all of us. Russia will continue to promote a positive and unifying agenda aimed at removing the old dividing lines and preventing the appearance of new ones. Russia has advanced initiatives to prevent an arms race in outer space, establish efficient mechanisms for combating terrorism, including chemical and biological terrorism, and to agree upon practical measures to prevent the use of cyberspace for undermining national security or for other criminal purposes.
Our proposals to launch a serious discussion on all aspects of strategic stability in the modern era are still on the table.
There have been ideas floated recently to modify the agenda and update the terms. The proposed subjects for discussion vary between “strategic rivalry” and “multilateral deterrence.” Terminology is negotiable, but it is not terms but the essence that really matters. It is now much more important to start a strategic dialogue on the existing threats and risks and to seek consensus on a commonly acceptable agenda. Yet another outstanding statesman from our country, Andrey Gromyko (his 110th birth anniversary we mark this year) said wisely: “Better to have ten years of negotiations than one day of war.”
Nice speech, but he uses a lot of big words. Not sure if many of my fellow Americans will understand.
Americans (fellow) don’t read anymore. Just feed me a podcast. Too lazy to scroll.
James: I fear you maybe correct. But perhaps they will understand the old one-liner:
“If you don’t deal with Lavrov you have to deal with Shoigu”.
Now that would be some karma, would it not?
Thank you Mr. Lavrob for your sobering speech. Like a hot knife cutting through butter, you demolish the fiction that the Western countries stand for democratic values.
The point you make that countries great and small need to be given representation at the decision making table cannot be overstated.
Peace
‘Western countries’ means the ruling classes in those countries, not the populace. And these are the most Evil concatenation of psychopaths, predatory parasites, bullying thugs, genocidal butchers and deluded narcissists ever created by some demonic force-in this case capitalism. Capitalism that has devolved into its most primitive form, Free Market Absolutist neo-liberal capitalism, a type of cancer that is devouring the planet right before our eyes. A system so Evil that in the face of a rapid and universal ecological collapse that will destroy most Life on Earth, absolutely DEMANDS that nothing will change, and its full steam ahead to omnicide.
Mulga I delight in your highly focused literary capacity for forensically accurate and detailed, yet totally accurate, and highly emotionally charged, anti capitalist criticism. I though I was savage in my focused criticism, but I take my hat off to you and your appetite for completely just, yet savage analysis. Other than the quality of your focused political consciousness, your use of the English language itself is most impressive. I picture you as a poet and analyst, with Russian cultural background and much experience in journalism. You creatively combine right and left brain marvelously, along with abundant heart. Do I have you right?
Anyway don’t stop. I think this site really benefits from your consistency!!
And why do you think Western Capitalism is any worse than Eastern (e.g. Russian/Chinese)
Russia’s flat rate income tax of 13%, for example, makes the West look like Socialist Saints in comparison to it.
A lot of muddled thinking from Mulga.
Most of my family were and are journos-real journos, not presstitutes. I simply hate bullshit and intellectual cowardice, although in other ways I’m no Alexander. It’s just that reality is too important to be fabricated. And I have always been happy to be proved wrong, because that means you have learned something. Mind you, I’ve not been badly astray for some time-my pessimism has been vindicated over and over again. Thank you for your kind and generous regards.
Translator, beware: ‘…abuse of the status of the US dollar as the principle means of payment…’ – the right word is ‘principal’.
Nope.
Translator had it right.
T1, this is a complicated case… Principal and principle are homophones: despite sounding identical in their pronunciation, they have completely different meanings…
What is the meaning of ‘principle’? The word ‘principle’ is always a noun. A ‘principle’ is a ‘concept’, a ‘law’. If replacing the word ‘principle’, in the sentence quoted, by its synonym, we have ‘… abuse of the status of the US dollar as the ‘concept’ means of payment…’ It doesn’t make sense, as the word ‘concept’ is a noun, not an adjective that modifies the noun phrase ‘means of payment’.
What is the meaning of ‘principal’? The word ‘principal’, if replacing the word ‘principle’ used in the given quotation, is an adjective, meaning ‘most important’, ‘chief’, ‘leading’. Thus, in the sentence quoted, if using the word ‘principal’ we have ‘…abuse of the status of the US dollar as the ‘leading’ means of payment…’ Thus, ‘principla’ is the right word to use in this case.
***
I apologise for this controversy (about the right homophone to use) in the comments section of such an important text by Mr Lavrov. This is indeed a crucial time in history, and his article is fantastic. Let’s hope that the UNGA takes a position to avoid further imperialist adventures in the word…
Appreciate the nuances in your reply. If I may add:
Referring to abuse of the status of the US dollar as the principle means of payment:
The correct term is principal, meaning the one that is primarily chosen.
To say, the principle means of payment, though awkward and grammatically incorrect, would imply that a certain standard of belief is applied in choosing the USD over some other currency, as if to reinforce the notion of the righteousness of American supremacy.
The irony is that the principle of demanding payment in USD for the purpose of propping up the state terrorism exhibited against Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Palestine, Yemen and Syria is beyond doubt, unprincipled to a degree rarely seen, especially when the root cause, more oil for the most wasteful nation on the planet, is factored in, and when it is considered that the debt service on the loans required to obtain this petroleum can barely be covered and it is probable that the principal on that debt will ever be repaid, one can only hope for relief. That this relief may take the form of annihilation of the princes of the east as well as the stupid, phony nation that rejects theprince of peace, followed by a great deal of turmoil, my suggestion is to practice keeping a low profile and studying up on ways to ride out the inevitable chaos.
The easiest way to cipher these terms are the boss at school is your principal, (ergo, he is not your pal), all the rest (others) are principle. Do not over think this.
I guess I stand corrected.
I understood it to mean – the means by which
I don’t much care for English
meanwhile… https://m.jpost.com/Diaspora/US-Ambassador-to-the-UN-Israel-will-have-no-better-friend-than-myself-602376
Before we know it we will have a new super tyranny under all this planned destruction of democracy run by a world government with the former Soviet Union tyrants in the drivers seat. I think we can see the plan of the globalists here. Democracy on the other hand has the built in failsafe mechanism of transparency and confirmation by the people. I think what is needed is just restoration of democracy and engineering frameworks within the UN Security Council to deal with transgressors of world peace such as foreign interventions being the most disturbing development that is not dealt with today, as well as prohibition of sanctions and military interventions outside the juristiction of the UN Security Council. The UN Security Council need badly an overhaul and integration of new frameworks and protocols. UNSC is not going to be an overnational structure, and will foremost protect democracy and nations against transgressors, providing a framework for world peace that was the intention in the first place.
I see a number of faults in the statement, first..”built in failsafe mechanism….”? Uhh, the people(your people) are clueless and fall into deep denial upon transparency, this has been proved in universal court. Second fault, fascism(along with proper education) is the best way to utopia as long as the laws are nature are followed closely (today they are abused w/in our so called democracy). And since they will never be adhered to,(ideological democracy being at fault once again) the framework for the intention of world peace, will never materialize in the first place.
Alabama.
I am aware of some of what you are saying are obviously correct.
The situation is called usurping of power or mostly a coup d’etat that has evolved into todays mechanism of politicial elites running a corporate government (corporate fascism).
For example a party system was never designed in the US constitution although the manner of government was clearly designed in the constitution. This is called usurping democracy and the constitution is crystal clear even by the main statement of the Constitution “we the people”. Likewise other constitutions has been usurpted by creating the parliamentarian system. In the UK Magna Carta t was scrapped it might otherwise have been modernised into democracy meaning we the people. Party systems have likewise been the perfect framework for getting rid of democracy, there were even countries like Norway who created a constitution with a direct election system for their representatives (that was usurped by parliamentarianism).
So I was not referring to our socalled democracy, but to democracy, ie. democracy as described by a constitution ( being aware that there may not be a democracy, restoration of democracy means reinstating the constitution or making a democratic constitution). I am aware that this is achieved only by actually making a democracy so it will be a failsafe mechanism, transparent and confirmative before a country’s actions (the executive branch) or lawmaking (the people’s main congress).
@John4truth
Your statement regarding the party system touches a key topic which upon insertion immediatly transforms democracy into something else. By replacing the citizen with a representation in the center of the process, one is in fact replacing the people by demons which need to be fed in order to distribute favors or in short a return to the realm of magic, and nothing else is the whole show better termed ‘Demoncracy’. The feeding need of the demons is in perfect fit with another apparition out of the realms of magic and sorcery – capitalism, at which point the people then become just audience to fathom and applaud the glorious ingenuity of the Master-Sorcerers.
“Fascism” was not defeated in 1945. Still going strong. Fascism is neither Left nor Right, Liberal nor Conservative.
Elite ultra wealthy business interests have always run the governments. FDR’s New Deal was developed by US business interests to transfer Public funding into Private pockets. Same as Hitler’s buildup of German industry in the same period.
Communism or Capitalism, the elites rule and live well, while everyone else gets a tiny share and no voice.
Fascism, ie corporatism plus State power, won in 1945, in the guise of the Fourth Reich, the Atlanticist.
Yes the force is strong with Europe again, very, very strong .I can feel it every day, it carries pink, looks funny, jumps up and down with a smile, but what lays under it’s cheap plastic skin is the bottomless pit of darkness.
I can understand that Lavrov, being a diplomat, is attached to the UN as a forum for establishing multilateral agreements.
Personally, I am not a fan of these supranational organisations. Some exist simply to rubber stamp US aggression (Blue Helmets, UNMIK). Others are actively involved in spreading “liberal” ideology under the guise of charity and empowerment. Eg UN Women are very vocal about climate change.
The World Food Program promotes “gender equality” while distributing food ( “who prepares the food in your house, mommy or daddy?” Cue lecture on “gender equality” in food preparation before giving out the food.)
In any case, the UN and UNSC cannot be reformed according to Lavrov’s recommendation because it would involve those who are in power voluntarily relinquishing power…
Maybe not. The abuse of power—as you are getting at—by those who hold sway, is not unique to the US-cult, but rather endemic to mankind as a whole. To quote Solzhenitsyn: this is the law of the inverse ratio of social status to humaneness. It seems, from what Lavrov is suggesting in his final quote, regarding ten years of diplomacy, that we must be willing, to a certain extent, to forgive these excesses, for the sake of life.
Russia speaks. And then, sometimes a few years later, we understand that this was policy talking all along. Over the years to come, Russia will work to implement this world she has now articulated through Lavrov. Some of this will be seen, some will be unseen.
But it seems clear that Russia has now begun the task of marshaling the forces and agreements necessary to stand down the US overriding vote in the world, by building up the alternate institutions, and working on the UN to reinvent itself to accord better with the arising multi-polar world.
I have no doubt that this will succeed, over time. This is more than talk.
Exactly. I wish I lived long enough to see it.
I would like to see a proposal in the General Assembly to relocate the United Nations headquarters out of Manhattan, New York where the U.S. currently enjoys political influence on delegates and foreign dignitaries in a socially controlled environment on its “home turf” so to speak.This suggestion may seem simplistic but I believe it is one way to remove Washington, DC’s undeserved importance in the UN as the center of decision making for 21st century global issues.
It’s time for the rest of the world to move beyond the U.S.A. and I believe this is an option that should be explored.
I believe an artificial island should be built in international waters which could house the new United Nations headquarters. This could be a world project where all countries contribute to its construction. It would obviously have an airport, port, shops, housing etc to accommodate delegates and workers. It could even have a university where youth from around the world can train to be diplomats and do courses and qualifications in areas that will help our planet. Those countries who do not want to participate have that right but then eliminate their right to be a member. The UN should be located in neutral territory. It’s time to think outside of the box and save this planet and bring peace and prosperity to all everywhere.
Poke the Truth…if you know much about the American Right you should know that you could gather a great deal of support here for your suggestion of the UN leaving Manhattan.
Xenophobia and “fear of the other” is so endemic here that a many decades old mantra of “the Right” (such as the John Birch Society……or what I prefer to call the John Bitch….as in bitch, bitch, bitch, complain, complain, complain, whine, whine , whine…..not a female dog…..) Society is “US ….OUT of the United Nations! Now!”
In fact this sentiment is still alive …and I know it, even though I never check their websites or read their literature since familiarizing myself with their whining impotence…back in the early 1980s…..
Approaching Victorville, CA from the north on Interstate 15 there was a large billboard making this exact demand, last time I drove that route…sponsored by that Society.
Since the UN is headquartered in New Yoor City…dark suspicions regarding that cosmopolitan city.also run very deep in the American Heartland.
Clearly, not only is “US Out of the UN!” a widely felt sentiment here…...but switching just 2 letters of that demand….ie to make it read “UN out of US” would also get a lot of support here-—-but for different reasons than your reasons:
The supporters of that latter, reversed slogan here regard themselves as Paragons of Patriotic Purity needing to expel something alien, foreign…….and vile…(because it is different than themselves..lol .)…and nothing could make them feel more secure than total isolationism….and for the UN to leave….and in fact ….disappear altogether, not just here…but everywhere.
Whereas much of the rest of the world might like your UN owned by no-one-nation- island-headquarters idea………precisely to get as far away from those American Paragons of Purity………as possible.
“Consistent movement towards this constructive goal will allow us not only to keep up the dynamic development of the national economies and to remove obstacles to the movement of goods, capital, labor and services, but it will also create a solid foundation of security and stability throughout the vast region from Lisbon to Jakarta.”
I think it is noteworthy that he said “Lisbon to Jakarta.”. Australia should consider this the price for being a vassal state of the US.
Bravo Mr Lavrov, well said. As for the World’s real terrorist rogue states – their time is running out. As history attests – all Empire’s eventually fall. The Anglo Zionist one will be no different. Oh, and **** the ‘international rules based order’. The biggest pile of hypocritical hogwash ever.
Western elites consider Slavs to be ‘untermensch’ and they will burn the earth to a cinder before they ever accept them as their social, political, cultural or moral equals.
Sorry Mr Lavrov.
The Western elites may accept “Slavs” or not, it’s irrelevant. The elites are increasingly irrelevant. The massive cogs of change are already turning and nothing will stop them.
Wow – applause for Mr Lavrov – he calls it as it is and cements in that the current western powers will not any longer hold sway in the UN, simply because they’re screwing up. It is clear that this is not just another speech or article. There is a great deal of action hidden in these lines, and we will see Russia and friends starting to reformat the UN. Putin has started this with his response to being ‘invited back to the G7’ saying elegantly that the G7 needs other countries now, and Lavrov is paying attention here to the G20. What is crystal clear is that there is a UN overhaul coming. I’ve been waiting for this for a long time. We have to call out the ‘rules based international order’ each time we encounter it.
With the UN, the thing is we’re all tired of it and nobody really trusts anything from there. It has to be reworked because it is the only world wide and international body that there is, where there is sometimes a hope for something to be resolved. Now, the balances of power need to be rectified.
I’m glad to see the resistance to the weaponization of space.
The choice is clearly stated: “Will the multipolar world continue to take shape through cooperation and harmonization of interests or through confrontation and rivalry?”
This is probably the best place to add Mr Shoigu’s speech this morning in Tass. The translation is not too good, but the essence comes through. https://tass.com/defense/1079271
“MOSCOW, September 22. /TASS/. The United States’ belief in its own superiority could lead to various unreasonable ideas, posing a major threat to Russia and other states, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said in his interview with Moskovsky Komsomolets published on Sunday.
“When you think – as the United States continues to believe so by inertia – that the balance of power has developed in your favor, various ideas may come to your head, including unreasonable ones. I consider this situation now as the main threat, and not only for Russia,” Shoigu said.
Meanwhile, the recognition of your vulnerability and a wish to maintain balance and universal equal security “makes you turn your head on,” the defense minister said, also stressing that the number of threats to Russia is not declining.
At the same time, Shoigu voiced hope that a full-scale war is not on the horizon.
The priority task now is to ensure information security, he stressed, noting that “at the current level of informatization and automation, there is a high probability of errors in the weapons control system.”
Wait, what??
Shoigu is warning “high probability of errors in the weapons control system” due to “informatization” and “automation”??
So either he is saying to the US: beware of the trip wires we have set up, you could trigger WW llI all by yourself…?
Or is he warning that the US has a computer bug within their system that could go off by itself?
Either way, not exactly reassuring.
Amarynth
Thanks for this – and South Front now has a more extensive translation and summary of the interview:
Russian Defense Minister On Power Balance And Current Military And Political Situation On Global Scene
After reading this new version, tt would appear that the words “informatization” and “information security” actually refer to cybersecurity.
Russia has to get proactive like the great satan. For starters it should give the houthi a weapon to destroy Qurayyah (85% Saudi crude output stopped permanently) – thereby stopping worldwide wahhabi extremism financing, Yemen carnage, oil price increase to increase their coffers $200b annually, and Western Europe comes under an oil/gas energy grip of Russia and out of US orbit. But Russki is an Asian, he will not strike first.
“The Voice of the Bear”.
IRREFUTABLE, as usual with him.
Many thanks for the post..!
Regards.
Mulga, can you help me understand why you choose to ignore my (13%) example of the Russian predatory parasites on capitalist steroids (resulting in recent populace pension haircut)?
Is there some similar excuse to the Chinese “Communist” elite providing Capitalist “trickle down” pulling hundreds of millions out of poverty (all while inequality soars) at the crux of your, in reality, anti-socialist Socialist belief?
Putin/Xi the new Thatcher/Reagan without the bombs?
If it weren’t for your incredibly confusing East/West dichotomy It would be difficult, for me, to disagree with anything you say
As it is, Mumblebrain remains a perfect description for you.
I ignore you for your own good-otherwise I would just encourage you.
“Thatcher/Reagan without the bombs?”
What a beautiful thought! We could have done so much good after Gorbachev if only Thatcher/Reagan had not diverted UKU$A industry to Star Wars.
Lavrov is wise to open his speech with the history of fascism. What Germany could not accomplish militarily during WWII, the dollar system accomplished economically and geopolitically. Whether future generations will recognize that WWIII was an economic war and that it was waged differently than kinetic wars is not important.
The realization that fascism (corporatism) is an inevitable outcome of human nature is.
We should hope for future historians to have even recognized the existence of WWIII, and how and when it actually started.
As this current economic World War has continued on for decades, Lavrov cites the many symptoms and manifestations of it, as well as the geopolitical attempt to end it. Make no mistake, the dollar system will either be the winner or the loser of this war. And to equate that system with the national emblem of its flagship currency would be a mistake. The true winner (if the dollar system loses) will be a temporary state of equity for a multi-polar world.
But this is not a war whereby one nation or group of nations “wins” and it’s opponents “lose”. The nature of global corporatism and it’s battle strategy is far more complex. As the dollar system was once heralded as the world’s “saviour”, to do battle with it now is to “win the war by losing many small battles”.
Russia knows this. China knows this. The BIS knows this. Lavrov knows this. But he speaks the right words. This war will end when the dollar system (and the banking class that supports it) no longer controls the world economically and gold once again resumes its place as global wealth reserve asset. The CBs have been preparing, yet it still is not openly talked about. When it is, you will know that the world is ready for a new “accord”.
https://roacheforque.blogspot.com/search?q=accord
The problem is this: Americanism as a national identity is exactly like Zionism in that both fervently uphold their respective nations as God’s Chosen ones.
While Zionism asserts that Jews are God’s Chosen people, Americanism asserts that the USA is God’s Chosen (snicker) democracy.
America/Israel both proclaim themselves to be the New Jerusalem, the Promised Land that has been divinely chosen to be “liberators” and (im)moral leaders for all of humanity–whether humanity likes it or not.
In reality, America and Israel are of course European colonizer states that are based upon the ethnic cleansing and occupation of Native Indian, Hawaiian, Mexican or Palestinian lands.
They have manipulated this belief that they are God’s Chosen “Democracies” in order to justify not only their colonial occupations that continue to this very day but also their predatory behavior around the world … such as American imperial wars of aggression; economic siege warfare; political destabilization, balkanization, or regime change campaigns.
America fanatically believes in its Manifest Destiny to impose its unipolar world order on the entire planet.
But cut through all the American propaganda about “freedom, democracy, human rights, or a rules-based order,” what the USA is really trying to impose is an American global dictatorship in everything but name.
This sociopathic American national ideology is baked into the USA’s political and cultural DNA.
As such, America cannot be reasoned with and appealed to.
It is for this reason that America is an existential threat to any country that refuses to become absorbed into America’s totalitarian “Rules-Based” Liberal Order.
This American menace thus must be ended as a nation state–preferably with the break-up of the DisUnited States into several dozen smaller countries.
Indeed, a significant portion of Americans believe that a Second American Civil War is coming …. and not a day too soon.
31% Think U.S. Civil War Likely Soon
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/june_2018/31_think_u_s_civil_war_likely_soon
US Denies Visas to Iranian Delegation for Trip to UN General Assembly – Iran’s Presidential Office
https://sputniknews.com/world/201909231076864937-us-denies-visas-to-iranian-delegation-for-trip-to-un-general-assembly/
“The United States refused to issue visas to a number of members of a delegation, accompanying Iranian President Hassan Rouhani to the UN General Assembly in New York, Parviz Esmaeili, the Iranian presidential office’s deputy chief of staff for communications, said on Sunday.
“The failure to issue visas for the delegation, accompanying the president, some deputy chiefs of staff and the press pool runs counter to the diplomatic obligations officially assumed by the US government as a member of the United Nations and the host country,” Esmaeili told the Iranian television.”
Long past time to hq the UN outside the usa, it should never have been located in that fascist banana republic.
Ten Russians refused visas too…..absolute scandal .
“. . . the ruinous policy of appeasement . . .”
The West has not forgotten this lesson–it’s just that they apply it selectively.
They would call negotiating with Syria or Iran appeasement, but not allowing Israel to annex the Golan Heights. So any form of diplomatic engagement with the Axis of Resistance is the same kind of thing that led us to WWII
What was more ruinous in terms of beginning the war were unrealistic alliances (such as between Poland and a Britain that had no ability to act in defence of Poland), which drew western powers into what should have been a local war. Kind of like a mutual defence pact between Israel and the US, or among NATO countries including some small ones very, very close to Russia.
That ‘appeasement’ is another term for ‘propping up a stooge’ after their favorite horse the Bronfstein was sent home by a kick in the butt, and thus possibly kill two fleas at once, Russia and Germany+Europe self destructing themselves – it worked out quite well, not perfect, but well.
Because of Stalin, the Germans got some leeway after 45, but as soon the aimed for collapse of the USSR materialized, the Morgenthau-Plan was immediatly again activated to convert Germany + Europe into a pig-farm to be harvested to the benefit of the chosen ones who rule over them as god likes, as their god demands and promised.
Sergey Lavrov is a good man. Explained the problem in the world in a thorough manner. Sadly articles like this have a zero percent chance of any promotion in the west, def not in the US atleast. thanks for posting Saker.
Is this the future? An interesting quote from an old cherished book from my library: Writer was an oxford educated guy named Cantelon
“The truth is our world is a world of plenty. the world’s finest scientists estimate earth’s real riches to be her grain and her gold, her fruit and gems, her timber and treasures almost limitless in minerals and resources. some suggest that earth’s combined wealth would conservatively total one decillion dollars. divide this equally among earth’s present population and every man, woman and child would be a billionaire a billion time over.
Divide the 58 million square miles of land equally and every person alive today would have 10 acres each.
Many good men today dream and discuss a world that man could live in if he were free from wars and deception and self-destruction.
Dr. Peter Goldmark, who was President and Research Director of CBS Laboratories for 36 years, shows for example how a hundred million Americans could build model communities of 3000, and use only 4% of America’s land.
R. Buckminster Fuller, is called by U Thant, one of the greatest philosopher-scientists of out time.
On April 26th, 1973 when flying from Dallas to Los Angeles, I picked up the airline magazine and read in the American Way the interview between the architect Michael Ben Eli and Buckminster Fuller. Mr. Fuller said:
Sadly we see enormous numbers of stranded poverty stricken people while potential abundance is being deliberately curtailed by governments subservient to the landlords will.
Humanity is so accustomed to failure it still assumes failure to be normal, and does not realize that it has literally earned-and actually acquired- the capability to take care of everyone on earth at a higher standard of living than ever heretofore experienced by anyone.
The really big fact is that we are going to have to go through a complete and total resorting of what it is all about. then we are going to have to go about taking care of everybody not as on relief, but with the same spontaneous welcome and love accorded in new born baby.
Landlordism will no longer be able to extract a ransom. Money too will become obsolete, with the ability to produce enough to take care of all.
The fact that we now have the capability to support all life and are not doing so means we have to introduce a new system. One that can make the world work.”
A new System? Lets continue?
UN Leaders ask for more power
“On August 23, 1970, U Thant addressed the Fourteenth World Congress of World Association of World Federalists in Ottawa, Canada, and said,
A World under law is realistic and obtainable. The ultimate crisis before the UN is the crisis of authority.
The convention conducted by the lawyers and the judges of the world in the interest of world law was a solemn sight indeed. There were 263 judges from every continent, Africans in red robes, sitting by Indians and Pakistanis, and Israeli’s and 5 justices from the U. S. Supreme Court. Even a copy of the Magna Carta was on hand. and banners across the platform read “Pax Orbis ex Jure,” meaning “World Peace by World Law.”
There were 119 countries represented. the main decision was to recommend that the UN Charter be amended to provide compulsory jurisdiction for individuals, as well as nations. Joseph Clark called for,
an executive with substantially greater powers than those now exercised by the Sectary-General of the UN. A judiciary system modeled after the world court. Decisions enforced by a world police force, under the command of a world executive.
Would man be willing to resign such power to the United Nations, knowing it was under Communistic domination? For many the answer was yes. One person said,
If the price of avoiding all-out thermal nuclear wars should prove to be acquiescence in the Communistic domination of the world, it seems probable that such a price would be paid.
And if the question was asked, Why? perhaps the answer would be best be expressed by Adlai Stevenson, who in a speech to the United Nations Correspondents Association said,
Interpret us….as puzzled, yet aspiring men, struggling on the possible brink of Armageddon.
Why would men who are members of a strong and a free democracy vote in favor of a world organization which would include the explosive characteristics of south America, the turbulence of the middle East, the tyranny of Russia, and the violence of Asia? One speaker answered the question by saying sadly,
No, it is not desirable; but we have no alternative. there is no other way.”
How prescient is this little book and on the back cover jacket….1973 by the way:
“The author reminds his readers that the masses which accepted the ration system under the crisis of war will accept the new number system under a monetary crisis that will be purposely created by those wishing to establish world control.”
Hmmmm PURPOSELY CREATED? Isn’t that interesting and my guess is now that they have the technology things are moving faster than anyone of us could ever imagine.
What’s next? My guess is looking at the China Social Credit System how easy would it be to stamp everyone with their own number in either their right hand or forehead and legislate morality or law rather by way of what
Dostoevsky said their conscience and bread!
I prefer what Catherine Austin Fitts said:
“Livestock Management of the Masses.”
And all of this because of what really? The rejection of sin which is what lawlessness. How do you like them apples. What they want all of us to reject they want to legislate through control!! lol Anybody want to be a slave lol?
And Russia today wants to go back to being its own sovereign nation? The world’s executive ain’t going to be to happy about that now are they? Hence, I guess the war against her?
“Pax Orbis ex Jure,”
Chuck Baldwin has up some shocking, really shocking news:
Most of today’s Christians are completely oblivious to the fact that the counterfeit State of Israel that was created in 1948 has re-established the Sanhedrin. Well, it did—in 2004. And while almost everyone in America is focused on the potential impeachment of President Trump (a sideshow produced by the gamemakers to keep the gullible trapped in the phony left-right paradigm), the Sanhedrin in Israel is this week (Wednesday, September 25 thru Friday, September 27) launching a new global body, The Organization of 70 Nations, that Israel hopes will take the place of the United Nations. But the purpose of this new global organization involves much more than nations sitting down to talk to one another.
During this three-day conference in Jerusalem, the nascent Sanhedrin is going to resume animal sacrifices and will call for the global implementation of Noahide laws, including the establishment of an international court based in Jerusalem that ultimately would be given the power to execute (via decapitation) anyone who commits “blasphemy” (this is the same charge that the Sanhedrin brought against Christ) by not submitting to the Talmudic/Chabadist form of worship. (They aren’t advertising that part of the plan, of course.)
Obviously, the animal sacrifices of the Old Covenant were completely abolished by the supreme sacrifice of Christ on the Cross and the advent of the New Covenant—and by the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, which included the total destruction of the Jewish temple where those sacrifices had taken place.
From Breaking Israel News (a rabid pro-Sanhedrin, pro-Talmud, pro-Noahide outlet):
On September 25, the 5,780th anniversary of the day on which Jewish tradition holds the world was created, the Sanhedrin is holding a conference for the emerging Organization of 70 Nations. The conference will culminate in an animal sacrifice made by representatives of the nations on the Mount of Olives in which they will renew the covenant made by Noah upon leaving the Ark.
The conference will begin on Wednesday evening, September 25, the 25th day of the Hebrew month of Elul at the Jerusalem Gate Hotel and continue until Friday, September 27. Lectures and discussions will focus on the Noahide obligations incumbent upon all of mankind. A major focus will also be the establishment of an international court based on Bible [Talmudic] principles.
As part of the conference, the representatives will visit the Temple Mount and pay an official visit to the Knesset with the Sanhedrin.
On Friday, the conference will culminate in a trip to the Mount of Olives where the nations will be invited to reenact the ceremony first performed by Noah upon exiting the Ark [animal sacrifice].
The altar must be built and the sacrifice made by someone from the nations who keeps the seven Noahide laws.
An international court will sit in Jerusalem and judge according to the important and recognized laws of the Bible [Talmud].
All members of the organization, states, nations, ethnic groups, tribes will have a seat and equal voting powers in the court of law as long as they accompany the people of Israel as it appears in the covenant composed by the Sanhedrin in 2018. [Emphasis added]
Let’s be crystal clear: The Noahide laws come from the Talmud, NOT from God’s Holy Word, the Bible.
And if you think that the acceptance and implementation of Noahide laws are not pertinent to us in America, you’d better think again. Did you know that our U.S. Congress and every president since Jimmy Carter have given Noahide laws official legal status in the United States? Donald Trump has signed official documents recognizing Noahide laws all three years he’s been in office.
Here is an excerpt of Public Law 102-14, dated March 20, 1991, and voted into law by the Congress of The United States:
Whereas these ethical values and principles have been the bedrock of society from the dawn of civilization, when they were known as the Seven Noahide Laws;
Whereas the Lubavitch movement has fostered and promoted these ethical values and principles throughout the world;
Whereas Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, leader of the Lubavitch movement, is universally respected and revered and his eighty-ninth birthday falls on March 26, 1991;
Whereas in tribute to this great spiritual leader, “the rebbe,” this, his ninetieth year will be seen as one of “education and giving,” the year in which we turn to education and charity to return the world to the moral and ethical values contained in the Seven Noahide Laws; and
Whereas this will be reflected in an international scroll of honor signed by the President of the United States and other heads of state:
Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That March 26, 1991, the start of the ninetieth year of Rabbi Menachem Schneerson, leader of the worldwide Lubavitch movement, is designated as “Education Day, U.S.A.”
The President is requested to issue a proclamation calling upon the people of the United States to observe such day with appropriate ceremonies and activities.