From the UNO to UNATO

From the UNO to UNATO. 44943.jpegHow many wars has the United Nations Organization managed to avoid? How many deaths in war has the UNO prevented? How effective has the UNO been in imposing international law? To what extent is the UNO synonymous with a single policy regarding all members of the international community and the conducting of policy with one set of weights and measures?

The answer to these questions is patently obvious and sickeningly clear to all those who have been following international affairs in the last decades. More and more, the UNO has acted as the Institutional wing of NATO, whitewashing its actions, providing legitimacy for its policies and exonerating its officials from their crimes while serving as an organism to persecute its enemies.

Let us not, therefore, call it the United Nations Organization, let us call it the United North Atlantic Treaty Organization - UNATO, in which case it is fitting that its Headquarters stay firmly implanted in New York, the business centre of the lobbies which control Washington's policy and by proxy the policies of UNATO itself.

UNATO allowed the UNO to die back in 1999 with the illegal bombing of Yugoslavia and the interference in support of criminal mafia gangs and terrorists in Kosovo, it confirmed its burial in 2003 with the illegal invasion and subsequent act of slaughter in Iraq, and the Libya campaign in 2011 merely confirms what the international community has long suspected: there is no international community nor does international law exist.

NATO itself does not recognise jurisdiction over NATO members or citizens of NATO member states, the USA does not recognise the jurisdiction of The Hague over its citizens. The Hague International Criminal Court itself is a travesty of justice and an insult to international law, being the only legal entity which declares a person guilty before the trial has been concluded and in the case of Slobodan Milosevic, held him illegally after he was illegally kidnapped and taken to the Netherlands. (1)

Why are NATO members not in The Hague after using depleted uranium in Iraq and in Serbia, why are NATO members not in The Hague after incendiary devices were used against Iraqi agricultural production outside a zone of war, why are NATO members not in The Hague after civilian structures were targeted with military hardware in Serbia, in Iraq, in Libya, why are NATO members not in The Hague after Colonel Gaddafi's three grandchildren were murdered by a NATO bomb?

The conclusion can only be they are not because there are two sets of weights and measures used in the international community and as a result, the international community per se does not exist.

The UNO as it stands today panders to the whims of the few, it is obvious that the NATO presence on the Security Council has its way and has its say, manipulating and deceiving the others, as per the promises to explain the issues surrounding the UNSC Resolutions 1970 and 1973 (2011) on Libya to Russia and China, when no such explanation was later provided. This is hardly surprising because no such explanation was possible, since the "Gaddafi attack on his citizens" was a manipulation and a false flag event (2).

Let us therefore entertain the notion of a divided international community, let us treat those who behave as pariahs as the pariahs they are and let us form a new international community based upon respect for the rule of law, based upon the legal precedents and precepts arising from the treaties we sign.

May I propose as signatory states the Russian Federation, the People's Republic of China, and a block based on South Africa, Indonesia, India, Iran, Venezuela, Brazil, Serbia, Libya... for a start?

(1) Research the illegal detention of Slobodan Milosevic and the process with which he was spirited out of Yugoslavia and taken to The Hague.


Lisa Karpova


Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey


Subscribe to Pravda.Ru Telegram channel, Facebook, RSS!

Author`s name Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey