During a very important meeting of the Security Council – not even mentioned in the Western Press – on 28 October, the United States voted against UNO cooperation with regional organisations which include Russia, and therefore also China. By refusing to work with others, and thus to admit that other powers are their equals, Washington has taken the path towards a division of the world into two distinct spheres and the end of economic globalization.
by Thierry Meyssan
- On 28 October 2016, the United States voted against the UNO working with the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation – represented here by its General Secretary, the Tajik Rashid Alimov – on the grounds that Russia is a member. The SCO represents more than 40% of the world’s population .
- © UN Photo/Evan Schneider
Moscow called for a special meeting of the Security Council on 28 October 2016, to debate the cooperation between the UNO and the certain regional organisations. Ambassador Vladimir Churkin, who was then presiding the Council, invited the representative of the Commonwealth of Independent States (the Russian Sergey Ivanov, CIS), the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (Russian General Nikolai Bordyuzha, CSTO) and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (Tajik Rashid Alimov, SCO).
The three General Secretaries presented the work of their organisations – cooperation between the states of the ex-Soviet Union for the CIS, a military alliance for the CSTO, and a regional cooperation to stabilise central Asia for the SCO. They stressed their contribution to the UNO concerning the fight against drug trafficking and terrorism – two subjects which are unanimously approved by the international community, although everyone knows that these plagues are created and controlled by the United States.
Although everything started well, and the different ambassadors who are members of the Security Council were congratulatng one another on this breath of fresh air, the meeting took a turn for the worse after the presentations by the ambassadors of Ukraine and the United States. Concerned about preventing these three organisations from troubling the monopoly of NATO and the European Union, they accused Russia of all sorts of crimes, and denounced these organisations as covers intended to mask Russian expansionism. The US ambassador concluded that, in these conditions, it was not possible to envisage any form of cooperation of the UNO with these organisations, including the SCO, in other words, also with China.
We find here the position held by various participants during Geneva Conference 2 – while everyone is in theory united against terrorism, Washington does not see this problem as being a priority, but puts the demands of its own imperialism first. Except that this time, it has not attacked Syria, but offended both Russia and China.
The world is therefore paying for the fog that has surrounded the fight against terrorism since 2001. Let us remember that terrorism is not an enemy in itself, but a method of combat used by enemies.
Washington has thus closed the only exit that was open to it. The Obama administration refuses to rcognise the development of Russia, the world’s major conventional military power, and of China, the world’s major economic power. It refuses to let go of the unipolar organisation of the world which was set up after «Desert Storm», in 1991, and pursues its wars in the Levant and in Ukraine with the unique aim of cutting the two land supply routes from China to Western Europe.
Given that its position is untenable in the short term, and that it does not want a World War, Washington is preparing to separate the world in two. This does not mean a replay of the Cold War, where the world was one, even if it was administered by two powers, but a new structure – on one side a unipolar world governed by the United States alone, and on the other a number of independent and refractory states cooperating together around Russia and China, and with the fewest possible number of bridges between these two worlds. This implies the end of world free trade, the organisation of world commerce, and economic globalisation, and thus constitutes a gigantic step backwards.
If Washington persists in this direction, it will have to withdraw militarily from Syria and allow peace to return – except on the Iraqi border, where it will maintain its interdiction of the Silk Road. Because of the United States this time, an impenetrable barrier will circle the globe and divide Humanity, just as the Berlin Wall separated the population of the ex-capital of Germany, dividing its families for almost half a century. It will therefore become very difficult for the Syrians, who fled to foreign lands to escape the jihadists, to return home and join with their families again. And it will become impossible for a Westerner to spend his holidays in Moscow or buy Chinese computers.