In his report on Syria, the UN Secretary-General says that all the parties to the armed conflict are committing international crimes, primarily war crimes and crimes against humanity. Ban Ki-moon constantly refers to the deaths of civilians during military operations carried out by government forces. For example, his report to the Security Council says that: «Government forces continued their aerial and ground attacks in Duma in eastern Ghutah during the reporting period, including on civilian areas, killing at least 25 civilians and injuring at least 270 more».

The report also talks about crimes committed by the so-called opposition, but in much milder terms. When referring to a number of crimes committed by «opposition groups», for example, Ban Ki-moon invariably adds that they were carried out «in response» to actions by government forces. 

The Secretary-General’s reports serve as a basis for resolutions adopted by the UN Security Council, including on the use of force. In this regard, it is essential that any information provided is accurate. The sources of information used by the UN Security-General to compile his report are therefore particularly noteworthy: «The information contained herein is based on the data available to the United Nations agencies on the ground, from the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic and from open sources». It becomes clear when reading the text of the report that it does not specify a single source! You need to work out for yourself which information «available to United Nations agencies» was obtained by Ban Ki-moon from Islamic State militants and which information was taken from the Internet and newspapers.

Central to Ban Ki-moon’s report is the section that virtually accuses the Russian Federation of committing war crimes. In Paragraph 4, for example, the UN Secretary-General says that during air strikes from Russian forces, «Zaafarani village was struck, killing at least 11 civilians and wounding more than 50 others. Rastan was also struck, killing six civilians, four of whom were children. Residential neighbourhoods in Tallbisah were also reportedly hit, killing at least 15 civilians».

The UN Security General also states that this information was received by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). Once again, it fails to say from whom exactly the information was received. Here we are dealing with a crude and deliberate frame up.

There is a good reason why the Russian Foreign Ministry appraised the report in rather harsh terms. Ban Ki-moon’s statement was referred to as «the circulation of false materials». The spokesperson for the Russian Foreign Ministry reported that, «the other day the Russian Defence Ministry invited military attaches to ask them direct questions about the sources they draw their news from – the information about Russia allegedly hitting the wrong targets eventually killing civilians. No information was officially handed over to us. At the same time, these types of propaganda props – which is what they are – are sent out slyly right before important events».

The attack against Russia was the most important point in Ban Ki-moon’s report. For several years now, an idea favoured by the UN Secretary-General has been the ‘recommendation’ that the situation in Syria be referred to the International Criminal Court. This desire is not only unjustified in terms of the facts, but is also illegal. The UN Secretary-General is not actually the «head of the UN», as he is often referred to, but is merely the head of a UN body called the Secretariat. In addition, a UN employee cannot call for the situation in a UN member country to be referred to any another organisation. Russia has used its veto three times to block such attempts. And lest there be any doubt who his main target is, Ban Ki-moon has once again included this ‘recommendation’ in his new report. I guess the duck really has become hopelessly lame…

The most “troubled” republics of former Yugoslavia are to be the final phase of the tour. 

During his stay in Serbia on July 23-24 Ban Ki-moon will hold talks with the new President Tomislav Nikolić, newly appointed Prime Minister Ivica Dacic and minister of Foreign Affairs Vuk Jeremić, who has been recently elected to preside over the UN General Assembly. He’ll leave Belgrade for Kosovo to meet the officials of UN Interim Administration Mission and other international organizations in Pristina and the representatives of local government. The Orthodox monastery Visokih Decana and medieval Kosovo town Preseren are part of the visit’s program. 

Leaving Kosovo, that remains to be a “hot spot” on the European map, Ban Ki-moon is to go to a no less troubled area, a historic Balkan region still called a former Yugoslav Republic Macedonia in official UN documents. At the final leg of the saturated tour he is to make a stop in Bosnia and Herzegovina. There he’ll have more interlocutors than in other republics because the country is governed by a collective Presidency. The visit to the Potochary Cemetery is a special event to inevitably restart discussions in Bosnia and Herzegovina itself as well as beyond its borders on causes, character and lessons of the 1995 Srebrenica events, especially in the light of a recent statement by the new Serbian leader Tomislav Nicolic refusing to recognize it as genocide. [1] 

Kosovo is the place where Ban Ki-moon will hold the most intensive discussions. He’ll be the first head of United Nations to visit the region after its unilateral declaration of independence. Many Serbians find it to be a serious reason to blame the esteemed guest for trying to legitimate the separatist regime. President Tomislav Nikolic said that his visit to Pristina “has problems” [2]. The UN Secretary had to explain the mechanism of his visit to make it, as he sees it, an event of neutral status; He said at a special interview for Balkan media that his visit to Kosovo will be arranged according to the UN Security Council’s resolution 1244. 

The definition was required because right before the press conference the Serbian President asked him to make precise the purpose – was it to meet the UN mission in Kosovo or to pay a visit to the self-proclaimed state? [3] As is known the UN Security Council’s resolution N1244 adopted on 10 June 1999 reaffirmed “the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the other States of the region, as set out in the Helsinki Final Act”. Moreover the document reaffirmed “the call in previous resolutions for substantial autonomy and meaningful self-administration for Kosovo” [4]. The recent explanations offered by Ban Ki-moon presuppose that the document is still in force (otherwise the Secretary General would have brought to naught all the efforts applied by the organization he leads to settle the problems of the Balkans). However its being effective didn’t stand in the way of the West hastily rushing to recognize the self-proclaimed Kosovo. A few years ago Ban Ki-moon dissociated himself from the problem, he never even commented on the merits of the “Kosovo project” worked out by the USA and the European Union. 

According to what the Secretary General says his main mission is the establishment of full cooperation between Belgrade and Pristina – in other words it’s aimed at the encouragement of the policy implemented by the European Union in Kosovo for a year and a half [5]. He said “Both parties must fully cooperate for the sake of their prosperity and security. This is it what I will talk to leaders of Serbia and Kosovo". [6] 

The fact that his Kosovo agenda is “recurring” hasn’t escaped the attention of Pristina English language media. Newspaper Zeri most strictly defined the sentiments prevailing in Kosovo saying there was doubt the visit will result in “anything spectacular”. The political analyst from the Kosovo-based think tank KIPRED Ardian Arifaj said that he views Ban Ki-moon’s visit “more as symbolic rather than a visit that could be useful for Kosovo”. I must say he is right when saying: “Kosovo aims to become member of the UN but it still isn’t and doesn’t have formalised relations with the UN. Therefore, it doesn’t stand to gain much. UN still has its mission in Kosovo and UNMIK is the largest international mission in Kosovo but doesn’t play a role in Kosovo’s every-day affairs.”

At the same time, the leader of the Serbs in the north, Marko Jaksic, said the Serb community doesn’t expect anything special from the visit of the UN Secretary General. However, he added that they do expect Ban to reconfirm that UNSCR 1244 is still the most valid document for Kosovo. “We hope Ban Ki-moon will act in line with this resolution and these views while allowing the continuation of UNMIK’s presence in Kosovo territory despite the fact that, through a very bad political decision, Belgrade has permitted EULEX to replace UNMIK,” Jaksic said [7]. The statement is a heavy blow to former Serbian authorities. In 2009 they sanctioned the deployment of UN mission in Kosovo that helped the local separatists to build the self-proclaimed statehood without looking back at the UN decisions. 

Alas! As is known even if the issue of the Kosovo status is to be raised at the impending talks held by Ban Ki-moon in Pristina it will not be considered on the basis of the UN Security resolution N 1244. According to Kosovo newspaper “Epoca e Re” the Secretary General will hold full-fledged negotiations with President Atifete Jahjaga, Prime Minister Hashim Thaci, and the Speaker of the Parliament Mr. Jakup Krasniqi in the administrative center of the region, the same way he’ll have it done in other Balkan capitals by the time. Obviously it will not let Ban Ki-moon make statements opposing the official Pristina policy. Especially as the former Foreign Minister of South Korea never had such intentions. [8]

His stance on the situation in Serbia’s three southern municipalities with mixed Serb-Albanian population: Bujanovac, Medvedja, Preševo appears to be more realistic. Anyway, according to Kosova Sot newspaper the Secretary General has already received a corresponding request from the local Albanian leaders, who openly state their intention to repeat the Kosovo scenario in the Presevo Valley. [9] 

With Tomislav Nikolic becoming President Serbia’s stance on Kosovo is rather reserved. According to the sources from Serbian Progressive Party Nicolic has prepared his own “plan of Kosovo settlement” but its content is kept out of public view. Still some time before the Ban Ki-moon’s tour new Serbian Prime Minister Ivica Dacic reaffirmed that he thought the region’s partition was the best solution. [10] 

Looks like the Ban Ki-moon’s Balkan tour is to demonstrate once more the UN regional policy is in crisis. I’d like to be mistaken but the Secretary General makes murky statements displaying inability to take a clear stance on one of the key regional problems. It confirms the view offered by the US National Intelligence Council’s Global Trends 2025 report. Made public as far back as 2008 it clearly says the prospects are bleak that the United Nations will be able to unite the members in multilateral effective efforts, especially within the framework of the Security Council in its present or extended form. [11] 

Since 1999 the United Nations policy in the Balkans has become a hostage of the NATO military operation against Yugoslavia that pushed it to the sidelines of regional political processes. Speaking figuratively Aidan Hehir, a well known British international relations expert, described the situation stressing the UN was hit by ‘illegitimate, but legal” interventionism [12]. Elizabeth Baker of the New York Times was even more candid saying whatever politicians do about the United Nations, NATO will be the one to control Kosovo. [13]

Actually the United Nations has dissociated itself from tackling the key global problems delegating these functions to NATO, the European Union and other organizations, including the League of Arab Sates. The USA and West Europeans have a clear plan of political “reshaping” of vast territories in the Balkans, North Africa, the Middle and Near East. The UN doesn’t go beyond fruitless discussions in general terms. 

Moreover, as the classified documents that have been made public show, it is Ban Ki-moon who was at the origin of the self-proclaimed independence of Kosovo. According to Koha Ditore newspaper reports based on the Wikileaks information the UN Secretary General had an informal “tête-à-tête morning conversation” with Zalmay Zhalilzad, then U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations in 2007. Ban Ki-moon told him he personally supported the goal of Kosovo becoming an independent state but was apprehensive about confrontation with Russia. [14] No surprise the incumbent Secretary General makes vague worded statements concerning the Kosovo issue. 

By and large we have the same situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the only thing that is different is that the United Nations Organization actually kept away from the mission of exercising control over the Dayton peace accords delegating the functions to the Office of High Representative of world community. Today after 17 years the situation is in a deadlock. 

(to be continued)

[1] http://www.unmikonline.org/Pages/13072012SG.aspx

[2] AFP 151211 GMT JUL 12

[3] AFP 151111 GMT JUL 12

[4] http://www.un.org/russian/documen/scresol/res1999/res1244.htm

[5] Kosova Sot,17.07.2012

[6] Bota Sot, 17.07.2012

[7] Zëri, 17.07.2012

[8] Epoka e Re, 16.07.2012

[9] Kosova Sot, 16.07.2012

[10] Zëri, 14.07.2012

[11] The World after crisis. The global trends – 2025; the changing world. М., 2009. p.156.

[12] Hehir A. Humanitarian Intervention After Kosovo: Iraq, Darfur and the Record of Global Civil Society. Basingstoke, 2008. P.11.

[13] The New York Times, 08.06.1999

[14] Koha Ditore, 06.09.2011.

On June 3 1940 a British armada under the command of Admiral Sommerville neared stealthily the Algerian port of Mers-el-Kebir and bloodshed followed. Three battleships, a lot of ships of lesser size, hundreds of sailors went to the bottom. On June 6 the Richelieu, a battleship of the French Navy, was attacked and damaged in the roadstead of Dakar. As a result the French navy ceased to exist. 130 French sailors lost lives. Why? Because France signed the capitulation in Compiegne and the ships could join the German navy. The Vichy government had no intention to turn them in to Germany, it intended to sink them in the last resort but these were details. Winston took the decision.

It must be noted the operation ran smoothly. «I am very sorry», – Admiral Sommerville wired to the sinking French ships before leaving. A real gentleman.

The Russians have something to remember him for too. The Churchill’s Fulton speech – a pile of lies about the aggressiveness of the USSR – became a prologue to the “Cold war” that exhausted the Soviet economy.

The spiritual successors of Churchill appear to never leave the Western political kitchen. Their motto is – play a dirty trick and do it as elegantly as you can. That’s what brings indefatigable UN Secretary Ban Ki-moon into the focus of international observers attention more and more often. Just recently speaking at the final 2011 results wrap up press conference he surprised the audience with his eloquence praising those who bombed Libya.

The Churchill’s spirit was there in his speeches, as he turned a blind eye on NATO’s taking sides in the Libyan intestine strife. But the main thing is to preserve elegance. To smile and bow when the time is right.

Now Ban Ki-moon turned to Syria. The Winston’s shadow is behind his back again. It’s not worth to list all accusations addressed to the president of Syria president Assad, they all come from the ideological pottage boiling in the NATO’s kitchen. The main idea is that Assad is an enemy of Syrian people and the whole human kind. He should be dealt with. And elegance shouldn’t be forgotten. Not a word about an armed intervention.

At the same time the Secretary General pays no attention whatsoever on the Syrian armed opposition. Is he not the one who should make clear what its numbers are, where arms and other supplies come from etc? It’s the chimera of “Free Syrian army” and opposition’s political council that are constantly mentioned in the media. But it’s well armed formations able to counter the Syrian regular army who fight the country’s legitimate government. Why the Secretary General has no wish to know who these people are and what they want? Perhaps it’s because Mr. Rasmussen has already told him whispering in the ear? The conspiracy of silence concerning estimates of real strength of Syrian militants is an amazing mystery of Western media activities. Ban Ki-moon appears to be one of the creators of the mystery. Perhaps we will get another prove of it soon at the UN General Assembly session devoted to the situation in Syria.

The activities of the body responsible for providing the Secretary General with information on Syria raise questions too. It’s the “Syrian Observatory for Human Rights” in Syria, based in London – an office that has no relation whatsoever to the United Nations with funds coming from secret sources. It’s not accessible. Perhaps the “Observatory” is afraid of Syrian special services and is hidden in an area guarded by someone. And the data concocted by the guarded experts located thousands of kilometers from Syria becomes “official data of the United Nations ” by the will of Mr. Ban Ki-moon.

It’s all done in respectable and elegant way, isn’t it, gentlemen from the SIS?

What about the resignation of Mohamed al-Dhabi, head of Arab League monitoring mission in Syria? Can the story be ignored? The General resigned because his report didn’t meet the expectations of the Arab League leaders. They spared no effort to make cuts in the report and send it to the UN in truncated form. Mr. Ban Ki-moon knew well about it. Still he met the General Mohamed al-Dhabi’s resignation with usual smile.

In response to the resignation the NATO’s ideological pottage started to boil producing new information bubbles: the assignment of the Sudanese General with rich intelligence experience to the position of head of observers mission was a mistake because he was a representative of the old regime and took part in suppressing the democratic movement in Darfur.

Here is a choice – one can laugh or cry. Just recently the Western media published reports about the atrocities committed by the Darfur separatists, how could one guess then that the very same outlets would picture one of the separatism fighters as a villain.

Ban Ki-moon didn’t meet General al-Ghabi but he did hold another meeting with Mr. Rasmussen. Nice try too. The two Secretaries General have an agenda for discussions.

It may take a long time to describe the dishonorable and not very elegant policy of Ban Ki-moon. The question arises: once the UN Secretary General joined the ranks of NATO’s mercenaries what the international community would need him for?
 

The US State Secretary Colin Powell’s speech at the special UN Security Council’s session on February 2003, when he presented «multiple evidence of Iraq hiding weapons of mass destruction from international inspectors», is an example. The session participants followed the Secretary’s fantasies like if under the spell not knowing the war was going to start soon and, of course, no weapons of mass destruction would be found in Iraq. And the person delivering the speech would say then the data «was inaccurate in many aspects and sometimes falsified». Just that. 

Loquacious British Prime Minister Tony Blair with flashing eyes and high pitch octaves comes to mind. He applied efforts to convince audience the Saddam Hussein’s regime was intolerable. In his fantasies Her Majesty’s foreign services had irrefutable evidence of weapons of mass destruction in the inventory of Iraqi dictator. Tony Blair did a lot to make the war in Iraq start to prevent the weapons of mass destruction threat. The weapons were never found, they could have never be found. 

Well, OK, no weapons found. Not a great thing in comparison with huge benefits received by US and UK financial and industrial groups that started it all and were not indifferent to the fate of the both war mongers. Mr. Powell joined the director boards of Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers venture company, Foreign Policy Council and Revolution Health Group medical company. Mr. Blair became an advisor for the biggest American JP Morgan investment bank and Swiss Zurich Financial Services insurance company. He also runs his own Tony Blair Associates consulting company. Now Tony Blair can be satisfied, he earns up to £ 50 million a year, the sum exceeding by far the income of British Prime Minister. One should think about his future in advance. Mr. Powell and Mr. Blair know how to do it. 

Now we have a medical case of a high standing official’s fantasy flights. This time it’s UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon who steps into focus. On December 14 he stunned the audience at the year end press conference by his ode to joy devoted to the NATO military operation in Libya. 

Ban Ki-moon expressed satisfaction that in the case of Libya the UN Human Rights Council acted according to the «responsibility to protect» principle, agreed on at the 2005 UN summit by world leaders. To his mind the regime change in Libya took place thanks to the «process of democratization» and actions of the people. It was not a result of «outside interference including the UN». Once those present were not school children, but rather the people who knew well how the events unfolded, the Ban Ki-moon’s speech was met by confused silence. Most likely it was provoked by confusion – who does he think we are and who should he be taken for? 

Indeed in September 2005 the UN World Summit recognized that every state had the «responsibility to protect» its population from genocide, military crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. The final document stated that the international community had the responsibility to «use adequate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means to defend population from these crimes» acting through the UN. But the World UN Summit never adopted any resolutions concerning foreign military interventions. Evidently there is a wide gap between the NATO military operation and the spirit of the summit. The joy that filled Mr. Ban Ki-moon was in clear contrast with reality. 

But these details never confused the Secretary General. Making the NATO bunkers grown «responsibility to protect» concept pass for a result of UN efforts he went further with the fantasy and discovered that the concept, as he saw it, was getting more and more support from the UN members and the very principle as well as the ways to implement it were discussed not once within the framework of the General Assembly. These are insane mind visions again to put it mildly. Nobody in the world can approve the way NATO implemented the «responsibility to protect» concept except those involved in the aggression 

The listeners couldn’t yet come to themselves after what they had heard from the Secretary General when his fantasy flights went further. He told them the NATO military operation in Libya «was strictly within (resolution) 1973», adopted by the UN Security Council. 

An ITAR-TASS correspondent appeared to be not accustomed to such breaks of logical chain asked if the UN influenced the operation. The answer was immediate. Not once did he, Ban Ki-moon, discussed with the NATO Secretary General the prevention of human rights violations and civilian casualties… He said that to his mind that’s was something everybody could witness and he wanted no misunderstanding concerning the issue.

Lie and hypocrisy on the part of the number one in the UN led to universal shock. With all respect for the UN Moscow couldn’t hold it back and probably didn’t want to. The Foreign Minister spoke rather sharply. He said taking on the UN Security Council’s mandated mission to defend the Libyan civilian population NATO in fact took a side in the conflict. It blatantly violated the arms supplies embargo and was involved in the regime change that only increased the number of civilian casualties. Then Vitaly Churkin, Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the United Nations, demanded that NATO combat actions in Libya be investigated. Your hypocrisy got our goat, dear colleagues. But it was not only the Russian diplomacy who had too much. 

The New York Times is well known for its conflict area hot spot reports conducted investigation right there in Libya. The reporters went to 25 populated areas subject to the most intensive bombing and saw over 150 hit «targets», that were bankers, civilian buildings and road vehicles. The conclusion was indisputable: while babbling about «responsibility to protect» NATO was killing civilian population.

In the December 17 2011 edition the New York Times reported the major losses were caused by bombs and missiles going astray, wrong target data, the absence of well trained personnel providing ground guidance. Striking the homes of Gaddafi supporters the NATO operation command never thought about their families, women and children. The number of casualties increased while striking again at the time the victims next of kin rushed to help.

The journalists found significant and senseless destruction of civilian infrastructure took place. For instance, the air raids were targeted supermarkets, food warehouses and other life support facilities. The strikes against ammunition and fuel stores led to especially grave consequences. The high power ammunition explosions destroyed near by houses and killed dwellers. People were poisoned by toxic agents produced by arson.

Now the new Libyan government has to recognize the fact of civilian casualties but it limits them to «more than a hundred of dead and hundreds of wounded». The journalists common view is that the figure is far from reality, because the new leadership is not interested in truthful data. 

The New York Times investigation undermined the NATO leadership’s allegations insisting the bombing raids were carried out «with utmost precautions». They keep on saying it even when Human Rights Watch and Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict (Civic) representatives met the alliance officials and gave them the data on civilian casualties including lists of victims and locations of deaths. There was no response on the NATO’s leadership. The above mentioned organizations say the NATO’s reluctance to be responsible for civilian casualties confirms once more the failure of its policy. Fred Abrams from Human Rights Watch says it’s clear the civilians lost lives during air raids. The whole NATO campaign in Libya is filled with the atmosphere of deceit as on the part of NATO itself as well as on the part of the new Libyan authorities praising each other.

Not once Russia said NATO operation in Libya went unacceptably far beyond the limits of the UN Security Council N 1973 resolution and the mandate was grossly violated. Numerous civilian victims and significant damage to the country’s socio-economic infrastructure followed. Bur Mr. Ban Ki-moon appears to be unacquainted with the point of view of one of UN Security Council’s permanent members and founders of the organization that he heads as Secretary General. Declaring a war on common sense he allows himself «fantasy flights» making remember «a human being is weak and subject to temptation». 

No way the Ban Ki-moon’s 2011 year end press conference speech can be perceived as anything else but a performance ordered from Brussels. It’s not so much interesting what motives are behind this disgraceful action on the part of a high standing official who’s name is known world-wide. Perhaps he takes care of his future? He is right to think his Secretary General’s tenure is not forever. Or may be, thinking about it, he tries to clear blood from NATO’s evil doing in Libya that evokes indignation in the whole world? Or is it all done just to comply with behind the scenes agreement between the secretary generals of UN and NATO, the existence of which is hardy doubted by anyone? To propose a NATO version of the «responsibility to protect» again soon, in Syria for instance…