Eric Zuesse

On September 25th, I issued a report titled “Important News Not Reported in U.S.-and-Allied ‘News’-Media”, describing an incident in which the U.N.’s bureaucracy was hiding from the public that the Ukrainian regime was firing missiles upon voting-places in four parts of Ukraine or former parts of Ukraine which were holding referendums on whether to become new parts of the Russian Federation, and that this bureaucracy were also hiding the fact that the U.N. observers “had received threats and ‘recommendations’ not to head to the polls [as observers].” This phenomenon, of the U.N.’s bureaucracy refusing to fulfill its obligations under the U.N. Charter when the U.S. regime wants it not to — even to the extent of the U.N.’s allowing their own agencies and personnel to be mortally endangered by U.S.-and-allied regimes for doing what these U.N. personnel are being paid to do — is actually commonplace now, and long has been so. The U.N. has long been terrorized by the U.S. regime into compliance with U.S. demands. Perhaps America’s own nationalists like this, but everyone else needs, at least, to know that this is the situation.

Only recent examples of this phenomenon will be discussed here. These examples have been published only by Web sites that support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as being a necessary measure of self-defense for Russia against further encroachments of U.S.-and-allied forces and weaponry ever-nearer to Russia’s central command in Moscow; and, so, anyone who refuses to consider the possibility that Russia is right and the U.S. is wrong about this war will dismiss all of them peremptorily, but I have personally checked-out the authenticity of the sources in each of these reports and am convinced that all are reliable and trustworthy representations of reality: so, I summarize and link to them here.

On September 25th, Scott Ritter, the former chief U.N. weapons-inspector in Iraq, who found the U.S. Government’s allegations regarding “Saddam’s WMD” to be dubious if not outright false, and who also had been previously a chief weapons-inspector for the CIA and other U.S. intelligence agencies monitoring Soviet compliance with the U.S.-Soviet Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) arms-limitation treaty, headlined at Russia’s RT website, “From respect to resentment: My history with the CIA”, and sub-headed “My history with the CIA. The US Central Intelligence Agency recently turned 75. I have my reasons to wish it doesn’t see another birthday.” He summarized there his history with the CIA and his reasons for concluding that: “My personal interaction with the Central Intelligence Agency helped me to see through its legend-infused mystique and realize it did little more than serve as a bodyguard of lies. Which is why my only wish for its 75th birthday is that there isn’t a 76th.” One passage there states that as the Cold War (on the Soviet but never the U.S. side) ended at around 1990:

I applied to the CIA, hoping to land a position as an analyst in the former Soviet Affairs division, now renamed the Office of Russian and East European Affairs. I was invited down to Langley, where I interviewed with a senior manager. The long and short of it was, my application was rejected because I was considered too ‘old school’ in my thinking. “It’s not the Cold War,” the manager told me. “We need people who can look at the Russian problem with a fresh perspective.”

Apparently, my commendations from the director of the CIA, all based upon analytical work, were not seen as an asset anymore.

There was another part of the CIA, however, which began taking a greater interest in my work. Known as the Directorate of Operations, or DO, this aspect of the CIA did not deal with analysis, but rather the murky world of human intelligence and covert activity. As the work of UNSCOM transitioned away from the task of accounting for the WMDs declared by Iraq, to searching for evidence of WMDs that Iraq was hiding from the inspectors, so, too, did the nature of the inspections themselves.

I was at the center of this transition, taking the lead in organizing and leading extremely aggressive, confrontational inspections designed to uncover hidden aspects of Iraq’s undeclared WMD arsenal. I headed up an international intelligence effort which included the intelligence services of several nations, including the CIA. We made use of the entire spectrum of intelligence capabilities to fulfil the mandate of disarmament set by the [U.N.’s] Security Council.

Where he says that “my application was rejected because I was considered too ‘old school’ in my thinking. ‘It’s not the Cold War,’ the manager told me. ‘We need people who can look at the Russian problem with a fresh perspective’,” he was confirming that the promises that the GHW Bush Administration had given to Mikhail Gorbachev on the basis of which the Soviet Union had broken up had been lies, and the U.S. Government was aiming ultimately to conquer Russia itself. But Ritter, at that time, knew nothing of this: he wasn’t part of the U.S. regime, the U.S. Deep State, which rules America and which had started on 25 July 1945 and aimed ultimately to control the entire world and to push the U.N. aside, establish the U.S. Government’s “rules-based international order” — in which the U.S. Government makes the international “rules,” instead of the U.N. making the international “laws” — and so for the U.S. regime to emerge ultimately as the entire world’s hegemonic Government, over all other countries, as being their vassal-regimes or colonies, so as for the U.S. regime to become the world’s first-ever all-encompassing empire. Mr. Ritter, apparently, back around 1990, still thought that the U.S. Government was a democracy, nothing at all imperialistic — much less global-imperialist, or “hegemonic.” The CIA, at that time, would no longer accept anyone who was “old school,” meaning who accepted the CIA’s cover-story and would not accept the CIA’s “fresh perspective,” to conquer any Government that refuses to subordinate itself to the U.S. hegemonic regime.

Ritter’s article also reveals other crucial and highly relevant U.S. history:

What we didn’t know is that the CIA was using the UNSCOM inspections – especially the communications intercepts, which were focused on presidential security [i.e., to protect Saddam Hussein] – to implement a covert operation designed to remove Saddam Hussein from power. This plan was implemented in June 1996, while a team I was leading was involved in a stand-off with the Iraqi authorities regarding access to sites affiliated with the Iraqi presidency.

The CIA had used my team to trigger a crisis which was supposed to end with US cruise missiles taking out Iraqi security forces, while a unit from the presidential security guards that had been recruited by the CIA assassinated Saddam Hussein and replaced him with a hand-picked CIA asset. The coup plot failed spectacularly, humiliating the CIA, which in turn went searching for someone to blame.

That someone was me.

I knew absolutely nothing about the planned coup.

Of course, in 1996, this was U.S. President Bill Clinton’s operation. George W. Bush simply carried it out in 2003 without its being a coup but instead a publicly announced “regime-change” operation, which was based entirely on lies. GWB proved that a U.S. President can do this and still become re-s‘elected’ by the selected American public. So, by now, it has become routine in America. America’s dictators — its Deep State, America’s approximately 1,000 billionaires, who own all of the successful national politicians and ‘news’-media — can now do it by either coup-hook or else military-crook, and still get their man (or woman) re-s‘elected’. It’s a truly bipartisan dictatorship.

Ritter’s contempt for the CIA has extremely sound empirical foundations, as he explains from his own personal experiences with the agency over a period now of decades.

Another example is also from that same day, September 25th, but for a different Russian news-site, Sputnik, and quotes a different author, Alfred de Zayas, a professor of international law in Geneva, former UN Independent Expert on International Order (2012-18), and a retired senior lawyer with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. It headlined “Ex-UN Expert: If US & NATO Observed UN Charter, Ukraine Crisis Would Have Been Solved Long Ago”:

De Zayas describes the UN Charter, “which should be considered as a world constitution,” as already “a strong and implementable rules-based international order. The problem is that the US has systematically violated core principles of the Charter since its adoption on 24 October 1945. … The US only gives lip service to the Charter and at the same time tries to invoke a different ‘rules-based order’ which is nothing other than a set of rules unilaterally imposed on the rest of the world by the US and its allies.” 

In addition to that, Washington has de facto instrumentalized UN agencies to advance US and NATO geopolitical interests which “have destroyed the trust that many had in the United Nations,” the ex-UN expert says. According to de Zayas, “it has become quite evident that the UN General Assembly and the UN Human Rights Council are largely in the service of Washington and Brussels.”

So: to a large extent, the U.S. regime already has pre-empted the U.N.’s authority and influence. The article closes by quoting de Zayas:

When organizations such as the Human Rights Council, the International Criminal Court, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons betray the fundamental principle of objectivity and impartiality, they lose their authority and credibility. … When they apply double standards and betray their mandates, they justify cynicism and cause considerable harm to the universal right to truth, the need to promote peace and reconciliation. It is a fact that a human rights industry has emerged, largely financed by neo-liberal countries, which advance a fake narrative on human rights. The mainstream media is complicit in the systematic disinformation and brainwashing prevalent in many countries and even among members of the UN secretariat.

—————

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s new book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.