Jeremy Corbyn: “A Better Way To Live Together On This Planet.”

By Jerry Alatalo

eople in the United Kingdom will vote on June 8 for either Theresa May or Jeremy Corbyn as their next Prime Minister. Labour Party leader Corbyn spoke recently on his vision of foreign policy for the nation, and international relations for the world, were he to become elected.

***

(Transcript and Video)

On Monday we commemorated Victory in Europe day, the anniversary of the victory over Nazi Germany in Europe. VE Day marked the defeat of fascism and the beginning of the end of a global war that had claimed 70 million lives. Just think of that figure… 70 million lives were lost in the Second World War.

General Eisenhower, Supreme Commander of the Allied forces in 1944, who was based right here in this square preparing the plan for that invasion of Operation Overlord. later went on to become Republican President of the United States, during some of the most dangerous years of the Cold War in the 1950s. His final televised address the American people as president was fascinating, and he gave a very stark warning of what he describes as the acquisition of unwarranted influence by the military-industrial complex.

And he went on to say only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machine of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Sadly it’s more than 70 years since he made that speech. Sadly in more than half a century I think it’s clear that Eisenhower’s warning has not been heeded. Too much of our debate about defense and security is one-dimensional – you’re either for or against what is presented as strong defense, regardless of the actual record of what it has meant in practice.

Alert citizens or political leaders who advocate other routes to security are often dismissed or treated as unreliable.

My own political views were shaped by my parent’s description of the horrors of war and the threat of nuclear holocaust. Indeed my parents met whilst organizing solidarity with the elected government of Spain against Franco’s fascists during the Spanish Civil War, which were of course supported by Hitler and the Nazis. My generation grew up under the shadow of the Cold War – our black and white televisions throughout the 50s and 60s and into the 70s was dominated by Vietnam.

As a young person I was haunted by images of civilians fleeing chemical weapons used by the United States. I didn’t imagine that nearly fifty years later we would still see chemical weapons being used against innocent civilians. What an abject failure. Indeed, I met recently a Vietnam War veteran who had been involved in using Agent Orange, and is still traumatized by that experience. How does the history keep repeating itself?

At the end of the Cold War, when the Berlin Wall came down, we were told it was the end of history. Global leaders promised a more peaceful, stable world – it didn’t quite work out like that. Today the world is more unstable than even at the height of the Cold War. The approach to international security we’ve been using since the 1990s simply has not worked.

Regime change wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Western interventions in Afghanistan, Somalia and Yemen haven’t always succeeded in their own terms. Sometimes they’ve made the world a more dangerous place. This is the fourth general election in a row to be held while Britain is at war, and our armed forces are acting in the Middle East and beyond.

The fact is that the war on terror has which has driven these interventions has not succeeded. It has not increased our security at home, in fact many would say just the opposite. It’s caused destabilization and devastation abroad. And last September the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee published a report on the Libyan war which David Cameron as Prime Minister promoted to intervention.

They concluded the intervention led to political and economic collapse, humanitarian and migrant crises, and fueled the rise of ISIS in Africa and across the Middle East.

Is that really the way that builds the security for our people, the people in Britain? Who seriously believes that’s what real strength looks like? We need to step back and have, I think, some fresh thinking. The world faces huge problems. As well as the legacy of regime change wars, there is a dangerous cocktail of ethnic conflicts, food insecurity, water scarcity and fast-emerging effects of climate change.

And to that mix add a grotesque and growing level of inequality in which just eight billionaires – eight billionaires – owned the same wealth as 3.6 billion of the poorest people on our planet, and you end up with a refugee crisis of epic proportions affecting every continent in the world, with more displaced people in the world than since the Second World War. Indeed, there are some estimates that think there are more displaced people now than at any time in recorded history.

These problems are getting worse, and they are fueling threats and instability. The global situation is becoming more dangerous and the new United States president seems, sadly, determined to add to the dangers by recklessly escalating the confrontation with North Korea, unilaterally launching missile strikes on Syria, and opposing what was a great achievement as President Obama’s nuclear arms deal with Iran.

And the suggestion is backing a new nuclear arms race.

A Labour government will want a strong and friendly relationship with the United States, but we will not be afraid to speak our mind. The United States is the strongest military power on the planet by a very long way; it has a special responsibility to use its power with care, and to support international efforts to resolve conflicts collectively and peacefully.

Waiting to see which way the wind blows in Washington isn’t strong leadership, and pandering to an erratic administration will not deliver stability. So when Theresa May addressed the Republican Party conference in Philadelphia in January she spoke in alarmist terms about the rise of China and India, and the danger of the West being eclipsed. She said America and Britain had to stand together and use their military might to protect their interests.

That’s the sort of language that led us into the calamities in Iraq and Libya and other disastrous wars that stole the post-cold war promise of a new and peaceful world order. I do not see India and China in those terms, nor do I think the vast majority of Americans or British people want the boots of their young men and women on the ground in Syria fighting a war that could escalate the suffering and slaughter even further.

Britain deserves better than simply outsourcing our country’s security and prosperity to the whims of the Trump White House.

So no more hand-holding for Donald Trump. A Labour government will conduct a robust and independent foreign policy made in Britain. A Labour government would seek to work for peace and security with all the other permanent members of the United Nations Security Council – the United States, China, Russia and France – and with other countries to play a major role, such as India, South Africa, Brazil and Germany. We have to reach out and work with others.

The philosophy “bomb first, talk later” approach to security has failed. To persist with it as the conservative governors make clear its determined to do is a recipe for increasing, not reducing, threats and insecurity. I’m often asked if as Prime Minister I would order the use of nuclear weapons. It’s an extraordinary question when you think about it. Would you order the indiscriminate killing of millions of people? Would you risk such contamination of the planet that no life could exist across large parts of the world?

If circumstances arose where there was a real option it would represent a complete and cataclysmic failure. It would mean world leaders had already triggered a spiral of catastrophe for humankind. Labour is committed to actively pursue disarmament under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, and we’re committed to no first use of nuclear weapons. But let me make this absolutely clear.

If elected Prime Minister I would do everything to protect the security and safety of our people and  our country. That is our first duty. And to achieve it I know we would have to work with other countries to solve problems, defuse tensions and build collective security. The best defense, best defense for Britain, is a government actively engaged in seeking political solutions to the world’s problems. It doesn’t make me a pacifist. I accept that military action under international law as a genuine last resort is in some circumstances necessary.

That is very far from the kind of unilateral wars and interventions that have become almost routine in recent times. I’ll not take lectures on security or humanitarian action from a Conservative Party that stood by in the 1980s, refusing even to impose sanctions while children in the streets of Soweto were being shot down – or which has backed every move of our armed forces put in harm’s way regardless of the impact on our people’s security.

Once again, in this election it’s become clear that a vote for the Conservatives is a vote to escalate the war in Syria, risking military confrontation with Russia, adding to the suffering of the Syrian people, and increasing global insecurity. When you see children suffering in war it’s only natural to want to do something, but the last thing we need is more of the same failed recipe that served us so badly, and the people of the region so calamitously.

Labour will stand up for the people of Syria; we will press the war crimes to be properly investigated, and work tirelessly to make the Geneva talks work. Every action that is taken over Syria must be judged by whether it helps to bring an end to the tragedy, the appalling tragedy of the Syrian war – or does the opposite. Even if ISIS is defeated militarily, the conflict will not end until there is a negotiated settlement involving all the main parties, including the regional and international powers, and an inclusive government in Iraq.

All wars and conflicts eventually are brought to an end by political means. So Labour would adopt a new approach, we’ll not step back from our responsibilities, but our focus will be on strengthening international coöperation and supporting the efforts of the United Nations to resolve conflicts. A Labour government will respect international law and oppose lawlessness and unilateralism in international relations.

We believe passionately human rights and justice should drive our foreign policy. In the 1960s Harold Wilson’s Labour government worked for and signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. As Prime Minister I hope to build on that achievement. Labour supports the renewal of the Trident system, but doesn’t preclude from working for meaningful multilateral steps to achieve reductions in nuclear arsenals.

A Labour government will pursue a triple commitment to the interlocking foreign policy instruments of defense, development and diplomacy. For all their bluster, the Tory record on defense and security has been one, frankly, of incompetence and failure. They balance the books on the backs of servicemen and women. Deep cuts have been made in the army, reduced to the smallest size since the Napoleonic Wars, stagnant pay, worsening conditions. poor housing… The morale of our service personnel and veterans is at rock-bottom.

It’s vital that as Britain leaves the European Union we will maintain a close relationship with our European partners alongside NATO, to keep spending at 2%, but that means working with our allies to ensure peace and security in Europe. We will work to halt the drift towards confrontation with Russia and the escalation of military deployments across the continent. There’s no need whatsoever to weaken our very strong opposition to Russia’s human rights abuses at home or abroad, but to understand the necessity of winding down tensions on the Russia-NATO border, and supporting dialogue to reduce the risk of international conflict.

We’ll back a new conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, and seek to defuse the crisis in the Ukraine through implementation of the Minsk agreements. We’ll continue to work with the European Union on operational missions to promote and support global and regional security. This means our armed forces will have the necessary capabilities to fulfill the full range of obligations, ensuring they’re versatile and able to participate in rapid stabilization, disaster relief, UN peacekeeping, and conflict resolution activities.

Because security is not only about direct military defence. It’s about conflict resolution and prevention underpinned by strong diplomacy. So, the next day the government will invest in our diplomatic network and consular services. We will seek to rebuild some of the key capabilities and services lost as a result of conservative cuts in recent years, such as the loss of human rights advisors in so many of our embassies around the world.

And finally, while Theresa May seeks to build a coalition of risk and insecurity with Donald Trump, a Labour government will refocus Britain’s influence towards coöperation and peaceful settlements, and social justice. The life chances, security and prosperity of our citizens are dependent on a stable international environment.

We will strengthen our commitment to the United Nations, but are well aware of its shortcomings, particularly in the light of repeated abuses of the veto power in the UN Security Council. So we’ll work with allies and partners from around the world to build support for United Nations reform in order to make its institutions more effective and more responsive. And as a permanent member of the Security Council we’ll provide a lead by respecting the authority of international law.

To lead this work Labour has created a Minister for Peace who will work across the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. We’ll reclaim Britain’s leading role in tackling climate change, working hard to preserve the Paris agreement and deliver on international commitments to reduce carbon emissions.

We’ll re-examine the arms export licensing regulations to ensure that all British arms exports are consistent with our legal and our moral obligations.

This means refusing to grant export licenses for arms where there’s a clear risk they’ll be used to commit serious violations of international humanitarian law. Weapon supplies to Saudi Arabia, when the evidence of grave breaches of humanitarian law in Yemen is overwhelming, must be halted immediately – as Emily has made very clear many times in Parliament.

I see it as the next Labour government’s task, my task, to make the case for Britain to advance a security and foreign policy with integrity and human rights at its core.

So it is a clear choice in this election. Between continuing with a failed policy of continual and devastating interventions that have intensified conflicts and increased the terrorist threat, or being willing to step back, learn the lessons of the past, and find new ways to solve and prevent conflicts.

Dwight Eisenhower said on another occasion if people can develop weapons that are so terrifying as to make the thought of global war almost a sentence for suicide, you would think that man’s intelligence would include also his ability to find a peaceful solution.

And in the words of another American, Martin Luther King, the chain reaction of evil, hate begetting hate, wars producing more wars, must be broken – or we shall be plunged into the dark days of annihilation.

I believe we can find those solutions. We can walk the hard yards to a better way to live together on this planet.

A Labour government will give leadership in a new and constructive way. And that is the leadership we’re ready to provide both at home and abroad.

Thank you very much.

***

(Thank you to Labour Party at YouTube)

From Vietnam To Syria: The Big Lie Has Killed Millions.

By Jerry Alatalo

United States President Lyndon Johnson lied through his teeth to the world on August 4, 1964. Johnson was not only criminally responsible for initiating the Vietnam War based on a “false flag” deception – the Gulf of Tonkin incident – but was a major force behind the murder of President John F. Kennedy.

Estimates of Vietnamese deaths range from 2-4 million, and 59,000 Americans perished in the many years of horrific war after Johnson’s Big Lie.

Among Johnson’s other crimes related to “false flag” operations designed for instigating war, he colluded with Israeli officials in the U.S.S. Liberty attack (Summer 1967), where Israeli forces received orders to destroy the vessel and kill all U.S. personnel on board. It was the conspirators’ plan that Egypt would be falsely blamed, necessitating U.S. military involvement, and would have worked but for a Liberty naval officer’s ability to configure a crude communications setup (the Israeli attack knocked out all communications equipment) allowing transmission of a message for help, defeating the conspiracy.

(One of the survivors of the U.S.S. Liberty attack of 1967 commented here on a past post dedicated to the historic scandal that “…Johnson wanted us all dead.”)

Johnson – had the U.S.-Israeli false flag operation been successful and all U.S. personnel been killed – had prepared plans to drop a nuclear weapon on Egypt’s largest city Cairo, making it the 3rd use of nuclear weapons on a population in world history after Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

These are just a few examples of Lyndon Johnson’s profoundly criminal, heinous actions, others of which may never see the light of day, and are important to remember when attempting to measure the level of danger humanity faces today.

(Thank you to TheLBJLibrary at YouTube)

***

ne could describe the United Nations Security Council as a form of world courtroom in the sense that members sitting around the table are effectively presenting their views in a lawyer-like fashion. Perhaps, like in a typical court setting, United Nations Security Council meetings need an international panel of respected, retired men and women judges to preside over proceedings.

Given that all members of the Security Council are certainly aware of history and horrendously consequential false flags like the Gulf of Tonkin, Colin Powell’s telling of the Big Lie in 2003, etc., the lack of any time devoted to members wishing to ask questions of other members is detrimental to any efforts at arriving at the truth about the most serious situations on Earth.

What is noticeable, and worrying, about the statements by U.N. representatives of U.S., U.K. and France in meetings after the Idlib chemical attack of April 4 is their total silence on the possibility that terrorists may have carried out the attack in a false flag operation, despite their knowledge of history. Their silence on that possibility goes as far as not even acknowledging such historically verified events have occurred in the past, while at the same time not responding specifically to those making the legitimate assertions.

U.S. Ambassador Nikki Haley was second-to-last to deliver a statement, followed by Syria’s Ambassador Bashar al Jaafari speaking to close the meeting. At the end of her statement, Ms. Haley directed her words to Mr. al Jaafari. Remember that in previous meetings convened to discuss the Idlib chemical attack, Ms. Haley warned the United States was willing, prepared and able to act alone, and that – after Donald Trump ordered the launch of Tomahawk missiles into Syrian territory – she again warned the U.S. was willing to do more.

In that light, people should consider the seriousness of the current state of world affairs. The greatest chance for preventing what could become a catastrophic military escalation in Syria lies in an international demand for Donald Trump to provide any and all evidence he says proves Syrian forces carried out the Idlib chemical weapon attack. Ms. Haley said:

“To Assad and the Syrian government – you have no friends in the world after your horrific actions. The United States is watching your actions very carefully. The days of your arrogance and disregard of humanity are over. Your excuses will no longer be heard. I suggest you look at this vote very carefully, and heed its warning.”

It is impossible to conclude otherwise but that Ms. Haley, in this April 2017 meeting of the United Nations Security Council, issued a direct, unambiguous, explicit threat of war against Syria.

***

The Syrian representative’s statement following being threatened with war, unfortunately, will most likely never be seen or discussed on any Western corporate media platform or inside governmental bodies. If that weren’t unfortunate enough, the important detailed relevant facts he presented will never become responded to by the U.N. representatives from America, the United Kingdom, and France. The question becomes: “If the truth cannot be sought and discussed at the United Nations Security Council, where on Earth can it be?”

The resolution authored by U.N. officials of the P-5 (Permanent Security Council states, holding veto power) U.S., U.K. and France contained language they knew would become vetoed by the P-5 Russian Federation (P-5 China abstained), because it would legitimize the attack by the U.S. of Syrian territory, violating the United Nations Charter and international law.

Either U.S. President Donald Trump responds to increasing demands from around the Earth to make public any and all of his evidence – or humanity is witnessing another massively destructive, criminal, and morally reprehensible Big Lie.

Time for humanity to act is of the essence.

(Thank you to The Syria Mission to the United Nations at YouTube)

Bolivia’s Llorenty At U.N.: Syria Strike ‘Extremely Serious Violation Of International Law.’

By Jerry Alatalo

olivian Sacha Sergio Llorenty gave perhaps the most powerful statement of all at the 7919th meeting of the United Nations Security Council, convened to discuss the situation in Syria after the United States unilaterally launched 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles into Syrian territory.

Mr. Llorenty was the first U.N. representative to deliver their statement, and began by reminding fellow members of the Security Council of relevant articles in the U.N. Charter. He spoke about the U.S. missile attacks as being a serious threat to international peace and security:

“Why?… Because over the last 70 years mankind has been establishing, building a structure, not just an institutional structure, but also a legal structure. They have established an instrument of international law to precisely prevent a situation in which the most powerful attack the weakest with impunity, and to ensure a balance in the world. And of course, to avoid serious violations of international peace and security.”

At this point Mr. Llorenty held up a copy of the United Nations Charter, and said:

“We have agreed that this charter – the United Nations Charter – must be respected, and this charter prohibits unilateral actions. Any action must be authorized by the Security Council in accordance with the Charter. Allow me to read a couple of articles so we can remember this.”

“Article 24 says that in order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations, its members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and agree that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility the Security Council acts on their behalf.”

“We (Security Council) represent the 193 member states of the organization, and through them we represent the people of the world. And, we have agreed that unilateral actions violate international law. Now, as we were discussing yesterday draft resolutions, while we were striving to come up with alternatives and come up with consensus in the Security Council, the United States not only unilaterally attacked, but, while we were just discussing here and demanding the need for an independent investigation, an impartial investigation, complete investigation into these attacks, the United States has become that investigator… Has become the prosecutor… Has become the judge, has become the jury.”

“So, where is the investigation which would allow us to establish in an objective manner who is responsible for the (chemical) attacks? This is an extremely, extremely serious violation of international law.”

***

Mr. Llorenty then reminded fellow members sitting at the meeting that such unilateral military action isn’t anything new, and has been undertaken by not just solely the United States but other U.N. member states in the past. He noted the 2003 presence of then U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell at the United Nations shortly before the start of the Iraq War, and how Mr. Powell lied to the Security Council about Iraq’s leader Saddam Hussein’s possession of weapons of mass destruction.

Mr. Llorenty reminded the council that Latin Americans have been subject to U.S. Central Intelligence Agency financed overthrows of constitutional governments in that region, and described the training of torture methods to military soldiers associated with post-overthrow government officials.

***

“When we condemn unequivocally chemical attacks, we say that the Security Council must not be used as an echo chamber for interventionism. The Security Council should not be used as a pawn which can be sacrificed on a chessboard – the chessboard of war.”

“This Security Council of the United Nations is the final hope that we have to guarantee international peace and security, based upon principles, on norms and international rule of law.”

“Madame President, Also I’d like to point out that it’s absolutely vital, as you have convened this meeting in a very transparent way, that we demonstrate the concern that unfortunately there are first class members of the Security Council and second class members of the Security Council. The permanent members, which not only have the right to the veto, but they also control the procedures, they control the decision-making. And the other ten, we may be involved if we are consulted or if we are convened occasionally, not just to… not just to underwrite some positions of others. This is not multilateralism.”

“Bolivia would like to reiterate its robust, its robust condemnation of the use of chemical weapons or the use of chemical precursors in weapons to conduct criminal acts, irrespective of their motivation, whenever it may be, wherever it may be, and by whomsoever it may be committed. And we reiterate that we demand when these cases take place there should be independent, impartial, and conclusive investigations.”

“Unfortunately, the attacks yesterday have given a mortal attack on the Joint Investigative Mechanism, and, against the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) so that they can undertake an investigation to find out exactly what did take place a couple of days ago in Syria.”

“The persons responsible must be prosecuted and punished under the law, and the same with any violations of international law, and which threaten international security.”

“Thank you, Madame President.”

***

Sacha Sergio Llorenty of Bolivia  delivered a powerful statement at the 7919th meeting of the United Nations Security Council. What made it remarkable, and historic, was Mr. Llorenty’s fearlessness in speaking truths unfortunately rarely seen at the United Nations, and in the process raised the organization’s level of integrity and bar of excellence. Perhaps when situations become extraordinarily dangerous, some individuals respond with extraordinary truthfulness to reveal the root cause of the dangers, so to effectively neutralize any and all potential threats. May all such individuals on Earth step forward now.

(Thank you to Permanent Mission of Bolivia to the United Nations at YouTube)

Syria’s U.N. Ambassador Addresses Security Council 7919th Meeting.

***

(From the United Nations website)

(Start: Partial unofficial summary of the meeting)

Members voiced frustration over the persistent deadlock in the Security Council, as they held an emergency meeting today following air strikes launched by the United States against a Syrian military base, with some delegates warning that the organ could lose its “remaining credibility” if unity remained out of reach.

While a number of delegates expressed support for the air strikes as a “proportionate” response to the Syrian Government’s alleged use of chemical weapons against civilians earlier this week, others condemned it as a unilateral act of aggression, underlining that the Council must authorize any such intervention.

At the outset, Jeffrey Feltman, Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs, recalled that on 4 April, alarming reports had emerged that an alleged chemical weapons attack had resulted in 86 deaths and more than 300 injuries.  This morning, two United States naval vessels deployed in the eastern Mediterranean Sea had launched 59 cruise missiles targeting Syria’s Al-Shayrat military base, he said, adding that the United States had explained the strike as a response to the alleged chemical attack.

“It is important that this Council send a strong, collective message that any use of chemical weapons will not be tolerated and will have consequences,” the Under-Secretary-General emphasized that the international community must hold all perpetrators accountable.  At the same time, he said, Secretary-General António Guterres remained mindful of the risk of escalation and had publicly appealed for restraint.

The representative of the United States emphasized that the Assad regime had murdered hundreds of thousands of people, broken international law and committed criminal acts that had shocked humanity’s conscience.  The use of chemical weapons against civilians was one occasion when the United States would not stand by, she said, adding that the Russian Federation also bore responsibility, having made it known that it would use its veto to cover up for Assad.  The world was waiting for the Russian Federation to reconsider its misplaced alliance with that regime, she said, stressing that it was time for all nations to stop the horrors taking place in Syria and demand a political solution.

Striking a similar tone, the United Kingdom’s representative declared:  “Assad showed us, yet again, this time in Idlib, that he is capable of redefining horror.”  Expressing support for the air strike, he emphasized that war crimes had consequences, describing the attack as a strong effort to save lives by ensuring that such actions would never recur.

Syria’s representative, however, denounced the air strike as a “barbaric, flagrant act of aggression” representing a violation of both the United Nations Charter and international law.  The Government of Syria did not possess chemical weapons and would never use them under any conditions, he emphasized, warning:  “This aggression will surely send an erroneous message to the terrorist groups, emboldening them to use more chemical weapons in the future.”  He expressed regret that history had come “full circle”, with the United States once again using fabricated evidence to justify its actions and to spread hegemony around the world.

The Russian Federation’s representative said the United States often cited the need to combat terrorism as justification for its presence on Syrian territory, despite the presence of its troops without invitation from Syria or Council approval, he said, adding that United States aggression had only strengthened terrorism by its attack on the Syrian air force, which had combated terrorism for years.  Following the air strike, Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL/Da’esh) and Al-Nusrah had carried out attacks against Syrian military sites, he said.  The draft resolution recently tabled by the United States, United Kingdom and France was “erroneous” in its determination that Damascus was guilty, he said, asking why they had not presumed its innocence instead.  Describing the air strike as an attempt to distract from tragedies in Mosul and elsewhere, he said that his delegation did not need to engage in a cynical show of photographs to recall those events.

Terrorism must be fought according to standards, he emphasized, adding:  “Look at what you are doing in Iraq.”  Noting that the Council’s 10 non-permanent members had worked for compromise on 6 April, he also pointed out that they had thanked the United States for having postponed a vote.  However, there had been no need for gratitude because that delegation had already decided to take military action.

Egypt’s representative cited this week’s events as “living proof” that the Syrian people were the victims of a proxy war that had paralyzed the region.  “We are fed up with the statements of regret and condemnation,” he said of the condemnations that the Council issued after every tragedy in Syria.  The time had come for “frank talk”, he said, calling directly upon the United States and the Russian Federation to seek a middle ground and a political settlement of the conflict in Syria.

(End: Partial United Nations meeting summary)

***

Syria’s United Nations representative Mounzer Mounzer was the final official to address the Security Council 7919th meeting.

(Thank you to Secundus Silent at YouTube)