The CIA’s favorite “peacemaker” Kofi Annan has followed his assigned script very well. This weekend he hosted an international conference of bloodthirsty busybodies to decide what is best for Syria, a once-sovereign state that found itself in the crosshairs of the regime-changers.
Sadly, although the idea of state sovereignty is at the heart of the UN Charter, that organization has served consistently to undermine rather than bolster that bulwark against the internationalist tyranny of the global elites. The final nail in the coffin of sovereignty was the heinous 2005 “Responsibility to Protect” initiative. Under the guise of defending against “genocide,” this R2P as it became known was in fact a license to bomb to submission any state still resisting the post-sovereign era. As we learned in Libya, R2P was itself a farce, as the “threat” of genocide became sufficient cause for an attack on a sovereign state. An armed, global pre-crime bureau.
This writer has been skeptical of Kofi’s involvement in Syria from the beginning. Back in April I wrote in “Is Kofi’s Syria Trap Sprung?”:
…Kofi Annan’s mission was designed to fail, to further weaken the wobbly knees of the Russians and Chinese and pave way for the planned NATO intervention. Readers know the drill: We tried negotiation with Saddam, with Gaddafi, with Ahmadinejad, with Assad, with the Taliban, and so on and so on.
That appears to be exactly what happened today at the international conference on the future of Syria held in Geneva, which of course did not include Syria itself. Reports the AFP:
World powers agreed Saturday to a plan for a transition in Syria that could include current regime members, but envoy Kofi Annan doubted if Syrians would pick leaders “with blood on their hands”
“Assad will still have to go. He will never pass the mutual consent test,” said Clinton.
While Annan did not name names and said it was up to the Syrians to decide who they want in a unity government, he added: “I would doubt that Syrians… would select people with blood on their hands to lead them.”
…Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said following the meeting that Moscow had convinced other parties to accept that the transition would be decided by Syrians and that no party should be excluded from the process.
There is more in these several paragraphs than meets the eye. Hillary Clinton has proven herself a fierce warrior indeed — on at least two occasions she flat out lied about the position and intentions of the Russians (the helicopter deal and the Russian position on Assad), demonstrating to the Russians that in the testosterone department she would not be matched. At every turn she has dug in her regime change heels and has successfully wrong-footed the Russians and Chinese.
Beleaguered, the Russians, as we see from Lavrov above, will agree to a kind of “Libya light” regime change plan for Syria, where they can pretend to have not abandoned an ally by successfully removing any specific reference to the US “Assad must go” position while at the same time watching the machine chew up the legal government and replacing it with one that looks more like the new Egyptian regime and its new CIA and Max Boot friendly president Mohamed Morsi.
[As if on cue, the new Egyptian president echoed the wishes of his regime-change masters:
"Egypt's President Mohamed Morsi -- elected after a revolution with overthrew strongman Hosni Mubarak -- announced on Saturday called for an end to bloodshed in Syria, in his inaugural address.
'We support the Syrian people. We want the bloodshed to stop,' he said."]
There will be a sham, NED-sponsored “election” in Syria where the US chosen figures will promise to be a part of the global democratic revolutionary movement. Cameras will be turned off, the increasing (especially Christian) bloodshed will be ignored (as in Libya today) and endless international conferences will decide how to divvy up the Syrian pie. The Russians will settle for something rather than nothing (as they got in Libya).
What does this all mean? For now US foreign policy will continue us down our path toward national moral and economic suicide. It is not impossible that the Russians and Chinese see this and are therefore eager to encourage US recklessness, but I find such conspiracy theorizing very unsatisfying. As Milosevic learned more than ten years ago, putting too much trust in Russian friendship can be a dangerous thing. One should not be too hard on the Russians and Chinese, but non-interventionists who believe that the Russians and Chinese, and US-excluded talking clubs like the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, will somehow deliver us from our own foolhardy leaders are sure to be disappointed. I confess to flirting with such shorthand on several occasions.
For now, global(ist) peacemaker Kofi Annan has delivered another sovereign state to the New World Order.2:39 pm on June 30, 2012 Email Daniel McAdams