There are regular cases of unchained fantasy flights among high positioned personalities of world politics. It may make you stunned and wonder at first glance. Then it becomes clear it not just visions of a troubled mind but rather well prepared speeches serving the interests of certain political elements.
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…
