Bullying, Bluster and Imperial Arrogance 101

by Stephen Lendman

Hillary Clinton’s outbursts reflect bullying, bluster, and imperial arrogance, not diplomacy. More on her strong-arm tactics below.

On July 6, Friends of Syria met in Paris. Tunis and Istanbul meetings preceded this one. Conflicting reports said representatives from 60 to around 100 countries attended.  EU and Arab League states comprise most of them. Since last year, they’ve been involved in crimes of war and against humanity.  Friends like these assure death, destruction, colonization, plunder, exploitation, deprivation, and unspeakable human misery.

Russia and China boycotted the meeting. Clinton used the occasion to lambaste both countries.  Her comments reflect imperial arrogance, contempt for rule of law principles, and commitment for war, not peace.

She’s a war criminal multiple times over. She’s arguably America’s most shameless ever secretary of state.

She’s clearly the most brazen. Her language and attitude exceed the worst of Cold War rhetoric.

Her take-no-prisoners thinking, character, and demagoguery reveal a woman addicted to self-aggrandizement and diktat authority.

She relishes death, destruction, and the spoils of war.

She’s indifferent to human suffering. She’s a monument to wrong over right.

She’s a disgrace and embarrassment to her country, position and humanity.

A State Department press release covered her remarks.

“Starting in Tunis and then in Istanbul and now in Paris, we are focused on determining what we can do to try to hasten the end of this regime and to provide the circumstances for an effective process of transition and reconciliation,” she said.

Geneva discussions “enlist(ed) not only all five permanent members of the Security Council including Russia and China, but also important leaders in the region and in the Arab League in support of such a transition.”

Russia and China support letting Syrians decide who’ll lead them. Washington and key allies distort Geneva’s final communique language to mean Assad must go. All means will be employed, including war.

It’s “imperative to go back to the Security Council….for a resolution….that imposes real and immediate consequences for non-compliance, including sanctions under (UN Charter’s) Chapter VII.”

Friends of Syria demand Russia and China “get off the sidelines and begin to support the legitimate aspirations of the Syrian people.”

“I don’t think Russia and China believe they are paying any price at all – nothing at all – for standing up on behalf of the Assad regime.”

“The only way that will change is if every nation represented here directly and urgently makes it clear that Russia and China will pay a price, because they are holding up progress – blockading it – that is no longer tolerable.”

It’s “difficult to imagine how the UN supervision mission can fulfill its responsibilities without a Chapter VII enforcement mechanism.”

“We are united in support of the Syrian people and in our absolute resolve to see the end of the Assad regime….”

In response, Russia strongly rejected Clinton’s tone, language and bullying.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich said Russia, China and other nations refuse participation with so-called “friends.” They reflect unilateralism, wrongheadedness, and immorality.

“(T)hey present theatrical and political propaganda shows that are similar to conferences of political parties, in which the fate of Syria is discussed in the absence of its main representatives and loud calls are made for the opposition to go into battle to undermine the Syrian leadership.”

He also called the duplicitous June 27 Human Rights Council report biased, adding:

“(I)t will not help launch a political process in the country.”

“The context of the decision didn’t include a condemnation of the armed opposition’s violence once referred to by Head of the UN monitoring mission in Syria Robert Mood.”

Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said:

“I reject strongly that in the situation like that in Syria Russia supports Bashar Assad’s rule.”

“This is not a matter of support for some politicians, but that the settlement process should be put on a normal, political basis.”

“Unfortunately, we cannot attain the basic understanding of various things from our partners, including Western partners.”