Hay gente que cuando llega a una determinada
edad se echa una manta a la cabeza y ya no se la quita hasta el final de sus
días. Eso explica, en parte, que no entiendan que en Siria, por ponerles un
ejemplo actual, la cosa haya salido rematadamente mal. Los americanos atacando
el país árabe y los británicos haciéndose los ofendidos por los ataques sirios
contra la población civil. Habría que recordarles que fue precisamente Londres
la metrópolis que le ha vendido gas sarín al régimen criminal de ese país. Pero
ya les digo, la venda da para mucho.
Lo de Siria ha salido mal porque el mediador
que se mandó para arreglar el conflicto era el inútil de Kofi Anan. Y es que el
ex secretario de la ONU
que fue obligado a dimitir de su cargo tras los abusos e irregularidades
cometidos en el programa Petróleo por Alimentos en Irak, en los que él mismo,
su hijo Kojo y su cuñado se enriquecieron, ha demostrado en repetidas ocasiones
lo patán que es. Lean la columna del ex presidente de la comisión que
investigaba los hechos, el señor Coleman, publicada en el Wall Street Journal.
Los americanos le buscaron una salida honrosa con la condición de abandonar el
cargo. Tampoco podemos olvidar las violaciones que cometieron los cascos azules
de la ONU en el
Congo bajo el mandato de Anan. Las acusaciones eran de prostitución, pedofilia
y violaciones de mujeres y niñas. Algo que no alteró el pulso de uno de los
mayores malnacidos que han pasado por las naciones unidas. Huelga decir que no
hizo nada de nada para evitarlas o castigar a sus responsables. Anteriormente,
Anan también la lió parda en Ruanda. Cuando era vicesecretario general de la ONU , un general canadiense
avisa en varios telegramas que los hutus se estaban armados para matar a los
tutsis que resultó en un genocidio de un millón de personas.
Sergio Calle Llorens
Estoy completamente de acuerdo con lo que dices. Eres muy buen observador. El caso sirio es una pena porque estamos apoyando a gente que apoya a su vez a los terroristas que nos ponen las bombas en Europa. Obama y compañía están jugando con fuego.
ResponderEliminarÁlvaro Peñafiel
You should take this into account
ResponderEliminarSomething else: At any time since the chemical attacks, has Assad expressed any feelings of sorrow for those killed in them, including the many children? Did I miss a statement of regret? Even if Assad’s lack of compassion doesn’t demonstrate his complicity in the atrocities, it says a great deal about the character of his regime.
In this context, it is worth noting that, however dangerous a possible response by Iran to American military action may be, its government—at least the part of it controlled by the newly elected President, Hassan Rouhani (if not by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei)—at least had the decency to “totally and vigorously condemn” the use of chemical weapons in Syria. But it remained agnostic about who the perpetrators were; given that Iran, along with Russia, is the most hands-on sponsor of the Assad regime, this is telling—a silent indictment. Iranians have suffered more than any other people in modern times from the horrors of chemical warfare. During the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War, Saddam repeatedly used chemicals against Iran’s soldiers (as well as Kurdish civilians), and not only denied their use but blamed Iran—much as Assad has blamed his opponents in Syria—for using them. Former President Ayatollah Hashemi Rafsanjani, who ruled Iran from 1989 to 1997, said on Monday that Assad’s regime, not the rebels, was responsible for the August 21st attack. Apparently, Rafsanjani’s remarks implicating Assad were later altered from official Iranian press communiqués so as not to place blame.
The Iranian position is nuanced, but suggests that there may, at the very least, be a slim opening for some behind-the-scenes diplomacy, and who knows—perhaps even a stand-down position for Assad as a last-ditch measure to forestall a military attack by the United States and France. (There is a good piece by Robert Worth in Tuesday’s Times on the possibility that quiet diplomacy may already be taking place between Iran and the U.S.)
It’s possible that even Vladimir Putin, for all his bluster, may be willing to accept a face-saving climb-down scenario if he is “shown the proof” he so obstreperously demands. Putin, throughout Syria’s turmoil, has been Assad’s facilitator, one of his chief suppliers of weapons, and has played the spoiler at the U.N., vetoing (seconded by the opportunistic Chinese) every measure aimed at curbing the mayhem. Already, Putin has sent a reconnaissance ship, the Priazovye, in a convoy to the eastern Mediterranean, “to gather current information in the area of the escalating conflict,” according to a Russian military official quoted by the Interfax news agency. But the St. Petersburg summit still may provide a timely venue for negotiations that might lead, if not to peace, than to something less than the disaster scenario the world now faces.
If, on the other hand, Putin and Assad’s other backers cannot be prevailed upon to bring him around—and, sadly, it seems unlikely that they will—then what we will have instead in Syria is a larger and more dangerous war, with unforeseeable consequences. The U.N. announced this week that a third of Syria’s population is now displaced by the war, with two million refugees calculated to have fled to neighboring countries, especially Jordan and Lebanon. It has become, officially, the worst refugee crisis in the world. That’s a reality that no state of denial or conspiracy theory can erase.
The article was published in the New York Times.
Muriel
Thanks a lot Muriel. You are always so kind to me..
EliminarKeep up the good work
I knew the article but I disagree on some points
With the opening of the G20 summit in St. Petersburg this week, Vladimir Putin has been busy. Believing President Obama to be indecisive as well as conscience-stricken about his choices on Syria, apparently, Putin wants to slow him down. On Wednesday, he gave an interview in which he said that he would not oppose the use of force against Bashar al-Assad, his Syrian client, if the U.S. case that Assad’s regime had used chemical weapons was airtight and convincing—“I do not exclude it”—but that it should be presented to the U.N. and voted on there first. It was a coup d’theatre, for on the surface Putin’s offer made him look—if you hadn’t been following the story—like an alarmed elder statesman concerned with due process in the face of cowboy Obama’s heedless rush to war. He took a more aggressive tone when he described, to his Human Rights Council, watching Secretary of State John Kerry’s testimony before the Senate: “This was very unpleasant and surprising for me. We talk to them and we assume they are decent people, but he is lying and he knows that he is lying. This is sad.”
ResponderEliminarThe next day, he greeted Obama when he arrived for the summit. The two men shook hands, but the situation was such that the seating arrangements were changed to keep them farther apart.
Sorry, I could not post the whole article.
ResponderEliminarMuriel
Admirado Sergio, te ruego controles expresiones como la última de tu artículo referida a Dios. Mi admiración por ti no se resquebraja pero no me gustan, son prescindibles y no le añaden nada al buen artículo tuyo con el que estoy, una vez más, de acuerdo. Gracias
ResponderEliminarPerdona, no quería molestarte. Saludos
Eliminar