New Zealand at the United Nations: the Mouse that Roared

The impotency of New Zealand as a nation is reflected in its tendency to compensate by sanctimonious lectures at world forums on any possible occasion. The use of moral humbug as a diplomatic weapon is the resort of hypocrites who have an agenda in which they wish to give moral sanction to amoral methods, such as the USA, or who are, like New Zealand, too weak to act; like a bully who circles threateningly yelling abuse and waving fists but lacking courage.

Hence whenever a New Zealand delegate is given a regional or international rostrum such as that of the United Nations, you can be assured that the most will be made to deliver platitudes on grave issues that are far from New Zealand shores, and shadow-boxing can be safely indulged with gusto. 

Prime Minister John Key came to politics from finance, having worked with merchant banks and the Federal Reserve Bank in the USA. He is thus a child of the globalist elite, and after retiring from politics will presumably be well-rewarded with a plush position in the realm of international finance from whence he came. It is therefore not surprising that Key’s speech at the U.N. Security Council inanely followed the U.S./globalist line on Syria, with the assurance to that contrived entity called the “world community” that Syria is a very serious issue. Syria has been a “serious issue” since the Project for the New American Century worked out a blueprint for Middle East “constant conflict” (See: A. Bovdunov, Katehon, 14 April 2016) as the “neocons” term their strategy that called for “defending the realm” (that is, Israel’s realm) by eliminating a series of Middle Eastern regimes. Of the hit-list marked for “regime change” only Iran and Syria now remain. Syria was and remains very much a primary target of global hegemonists (See: “Rebuilding America’s Defenses”).

Key soon launched into a condemnation on those who are alleged to have attacked a humanitarian convoy, while he remained mute on the attack on Syrian troops by U.S. bombers a few days previously (“U.S. bombed Syrian troops for an hour”). 

Key stated ominously: “Longer term, we will need to hold to account those most responsible for the appalling atrocities we have witnessed. This includes those responsible for chemical weapons attacks.” “We” meaning New Zealand continuing to pontificate while hiding behind the coat tails of the USA and UNO. Nothing will be learned from the same type of false atrocity propaganda that was used to justify the globalist wars against Serbia, Iraq, and Libya. The same methods are used, justified by the same rhetoric.  

Key continued:

"The conflict has created security threats that reach well beyond Syria’s borders. After more than five years of violence, Syria has become a byword for failure. Failure of the parties and their supporters to put peace, and the lives of innocent people ahead of self-interest and zero-sum politics.”

Key is no disinterested, objective observer, no matter how much, in typical New Zealand manner, he postures behind humanitarian jargon. He is propagandising from the U.N. Security Council in the interests of globalist war-mongers, who are responsible not only for the devastation of Syria, and the subsequent refugee crisis, that had been assured by the destruction of Libya, but who decades ago set the stage for the entire “clash of civilisations” by the creation of the so-called “jihadists” as a weapon against the USSR in Afghanistan. The same strategy was used against Milosevic in Serbia, where a battle was fought over the mineral riches of Kosovo, and against Gadhafi’s thriving and stable state in Libya. The “jihadists” have served as the cats-paw of U.S. interests since the creation of the Mujahideen. To what extent is the U.S. claim to be backing only “freedom fighters” in Syria, as in Libya, to be taken seriously? U.S. global strategy is too consistent to be assumed as merely a series of blunders, unless the U.S. strategists are all completely, collectively psychotic. The use of Islamic terrorism can only be considered as a policy designed to ensure that the whole region remains in a continual state of chaos. One must assume that for whatever reason stability is not wanted in the region, that “constant conflict” is the aim. 

Key stated: “That also means not using the fight against terrorism as an excuse to shift our focus from achieving a political solution. Terrorism is a major consequence of the Syrian war. But it did not cause it.” It is paradoxical how “terrorism’ is not a “cause” of a conflict when the USA sends bombers into a state ostensibly to “end terrorism,” yet when a legitimate state attempts to defend itself against terroristic insurrection, it is the state at fault. 

Key has now declared that the Assad regime will have to go. He presumes, like his globalist masters, to decide what governments and statesmen are acceptable. Those who are not can be, like Gadhafi and Milosevic and Saddam, literally hunted down and executed. That Assad is the elected head of state matters not an iota. He was freely elected in 2014. Over 73.42% of the electorate voted, despite efforts by separatists and terrorists to prevent the elections. The elections where routinely called a “sham” by the news media of the “world community,” despite the presence of an international team of observers. But it wasn’t the right team, and was not to the liking of the globalists. The ousting of Assad would have been the only acceptable outcome. In the U.S. presidential elections in 2012 54.87% of the electorate voted. Americans hold their world-vaunted democracy in lower regard than Syrians. Therefore the U.S. president had a lesser mandate by far, than Assad. Perhaps insurgent Afro-Americans, Latinos, Amerindians, and maybe even White Southerners, should be funded and armed by Russia, Syria and Iran to overthrow the pathetic edifice of world-stomping “American democracy”? Then there would be much weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth by the denizens of Washington and New York, but the world would be a much better place with the dismantling of that failed state.