Posted on 04/14/2017 5:44:26 AM PDT by seastay
(CNSNews.com) – At a news conference with U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson on Thursday, Russia’s foreign minister said that ousting Bashar al-Assad as Syria’s dictator is something the Russians will not pursue, because it won’t end well.
“A successful ouster of a dictator is, for me, very hard to remember. If you have any examples, I’d be glad if you could share them with me,” Lavrov told the news conference.
Lavrov said the Russians want Syria’s government to be “democratic” and “secular.” All ethnic groups should feel protected and share power. He said that requires a new constitution.
And only after a constitution is in place “will the issues related to certain personalities be settled very efficiently, without any tragic consequences, either for the country or for the people.”
Leading up to his remarks on Syria, Lavrov told the news conference that he views the current situation in a historical context:
“Rex (Tillerson) says that he's a new guy, and prefers not looking into history to deal with the matters of today. But the thing is, the world is built in such a fashion that if we do not take lessons from the past, we will hardly be able to achieve success in the present,” Lavrov said.
Lavrov recalled “certain situations when groups of countries, primarily Western countries, NATO countries, were sort of fixated on eliminating this or that dictator and authoritarian or totalitarian leader.”
He gave four examples: Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya and South Sudan.
First he mentioned the Serbian nationalist Slobodan Milosevic, who unleashed years of ethnic warfare in (former) Yugoslavia and the Balkans. In March 1999, NATO launched a 78-day bombing campaign -- for humanitarian reasons, it said -- to end the Serbs’ ethnic cleansing in Kosovo.
The NATO campaign proceeded without United Nations’ authorization after Russia and China said they would veto any Security Council resolution authorizing such intervention. On Wednesday, Lavrov called the NATO campaign to oust Milosevic a “blatant violation of international law.”
Lavrov also pointed to the toppling of Saddam Hussein in Iraq (George W. Bush administration) and Moammar Gadhafi in Libya (Obama administration) as examples of U.S. interventions that left both countries in chaos.
And finally, he pointed to a second failure of the Obama administration – the creation of South Sudan:
“The president of Sudan, Omar al-Bashir, there was a warrant for his arrest issued by the International Criminal Court, and several days later the Obama administration decided that in order to settle this problem, Sudan had to be split into two parts.
“South Sudan was established, and the Obama administration tried to help them secure Oman al-Bashir’s agreement to this splitting up. President Bashir upheld his end of the bargain, he cooperated; Sudan was split into two parts, in accordance with the Obama administration’s plan.”
But in 2014, three years after South Sudan gained independence, President Obama issued an executive order declaring that the situation in South Sudan posed an “unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.”
In July 2016, Obama ordered dozens of U.S. troops to the country to protect the U.S. embassy there; and a few days later, the U.S. evacuated all non-emergency staff from the embassy.
Just a few weeks ago, President Donald Trump signed an executive order continuing Obama’s “national emergency” declaration with respect to South Sudan.
After giving those four examples of failed U.S. or NATO interventions, Lavrov criticized the U.S. “fixation on trying to oust this or that dictator.”
“A successful ouster of a dictator is for me very hard to remember. If you have any examples, I’d be glad if you could share them with me,” Lavrov said.
“On Syria – as our president has stated on many occasions, we are not trying to oust anyone – Bashar al-Assad or anyone else.”
Lavrov said the Russians want the Syrians to “sit at one negotiating table," as required by a U.N. Security Council resolution. He said the negotiations must be an “inter-Syrian dialogue,” and the future of Syria “has to be determined by the Syrians themselves.”
“The most important thing is not to eliminate a political leader from the chess board, so to speak, but to agree on how the country is going to be built. It has to be democratic, it has to be secular,” he insisted. “All ethnic and religious groups have to feel safe, have to feel represented at government agencies.
“And only when such a consensus is achieved, which has to be done for elaborating a new constitution, will the issues related to certain personalities be settled very efficiently, without any tragic consequences either for the country or for the people.”
Trump seems to have made a 180 on Syria, question is why? Is Trump being blackmailed by the deep state, or is Trump getting involved in exchange for promises from the establishment to help here at home pass his social agenda, taxes , heath care , and immigration as part of the art of the deal ? Time will tell....
It's quite telling when single Russian foreign minister has more insight than the combined intelligence of all the media intellectuals in the US.
Anyone remember the successful ouster of Hitler? Japan’s Tojo? Of course, they attacked us and their neighbors, unlike Assad.
1. Russia
2. N. Korea
3. China
4. Assad
5. Iran
One stone; 5 birds.
The US alone can deliver that kind of hell, and more, anywhere on the planet. So let's all play nice.
Lavarov has got a point.
Saddam was replaced by an incompetent government that collapsed, and it now a failing state.
Daffy was replaced by a failed state.
Mubarak was replaced by the Moslem Botherhood, but the Egyptians managed to overthrow them and replace with a dictator - no thanks to Obama and Hillary!.
Replacing dictators doesn’t really work very well in that neck of the woods. You usually end up with something worse. IT is a ‘feature’ of Islam.
Lavrov is a very smart man
And very blunt
And who was (and still is) in those two countries to broker the necessary changes to turn them into civil societies? Maybe not so much with Germany, which was divided after the war, but with Japan, we worked to create a very civil, prosperous society post-war.
Mussolini.
This is not hard to understand. A very large part of the population in these places is made up of illiterate bumpkins. If you give them the vote, they immediately vote for 7th century Sharia nonsense.
There are some among them however that have various forms of education and realize the inherent weakness that comes with having a spear and a camel as your main unit of defense.
Being militarily ancient is how you get wiped off the planet. Ask the Apache. So, it is the “defense” minded among them that wish to progress into the modern age.
That’s how you get Military Dictators and relatively stable countries with industry and trade, or you get 7th Century Failed State terror wombs.
BTW: Will the obama Syndicate Ever Be brought to justice; and, would THAT come under swamp draining...???
Never mind!
Gunny G: RED: Retired, Extreme, Deplorable!
@ Planet WTF!
Semper President TRUMP!
**********
Not easy to avoid the extremes of (1) never trying to change a regime, which would have left Hitler in power, and (2)trying it too much(false flag, no control over outcome,when we have more pressing military needs, etc).
Seems to me ousting Hitler, Tojo, Mussolini, the Polish and E. German dictatos and Noriega, just to name a few, worked really well.
Noriega, Grenada.
In the case of both Hitler and Tojo, we OCCUPIED both countries after the ouster, and did not turn the gubmint over to them until both democratic representative republics were up and holding free elections. In fact, we still maintain a military presence in both countries. Not to govern, per se, but they are still there. But in this PC world, OCCUPATION is a dirty word, so although Iraq started well, it was not maintained and brought to maturity; thanks to liberal democrat lunacy, or perfidy, as the case may be.
Once fat boy is ousted it will be the South’s problem. They can handle it better than we can.
Tell it to Saddam and Quadaffi.
Spain, Philippines, the Soviet Satellites in Eastern Europe, Chile, Panama, Nicaragua, Grenada, Egypt in 2013. Shall I go on?
The cost to out Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo and the Cold War butchers was extremely expensive, even by Russian standards.
But which true military dictators around the world would be stable, not abusive towards their own citizens and otherwise good citizens?
My first thought was Singapore, but it is still a democratic authoritarian government.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.