Putin Calls for New System
Guided by UN Charter
..but is it possible?
By
January 23, 2020
Matthew Ehret for VT Canada
Anyone looking with sober
eyes upon today’s world and the feeble economic and geopolitical underpinnings
holding the system together must accept the fact that a new system WILL be
created.
This is not an opinion, but
a fact. We are moving towards eight billion lives on this globe and the means
of productive powers to sustain that growing population (at least in the west)
has been permitted to decay terribly over the recent half-century while
monetary values have grown like hyperinflationary cancer to unimaginable
proportions. Derivatives speculation alone under the deregulated “too big to
fail” banking system has resulted in over $1.5 quadrillion in nominal values
which have ZERO connection to the real world (GDP globally barely accounts for
$80 trillion). Over the past 5 months $415 billion
of QE bailouts have
been released into the bankrupt banks to prevent a collapse. So, economically it’s
the foundation of sand.
Militarily, the west has
followed the earlier Roman empire of yesteryear by overextending itself beyond
capacity creating situations of global turmoil, death and unbounded resentment
at the dominant Anglo American powers controlling NATO and the
Military-industrial complex. The recent near-war with Iran at the start of 2020
put the world on a fast track towards a nuclear war with Iran’s allies Russia
and China.
Culturally, the
disconnection from the traditional values that gave western civilization it’s
moral fitness to survive and grow has resulted in a post-truth age now spanning
over three generations (from the baby boomers to today’s young adults) who have
become the most confused class of people in modern history losing all discrimination
of “needs” vs “wants”, “right” vs “wrong”, “beauty” vs “ugliness” or even
“male” and “female”.
Without ranting on anymore,
it suffices to say that this thing is not sustainable.
So the question is not “will
we get a new system?” but rather “whom will this new system serve?”
Will this new system serve
an oligarchical agenda at the expense of the nations and people of the earth or
will it serve the interests of the nations and people of the earth at the
expense of the oligarchy?
Putin Revives a Forgotten
Vision
President Putin’s January 15
State of the Union was a breath of fresh air for this reason, as the world
leader who has closely allied his nation’s destiny to China’s Belt and Road
Initiative, laid out a call for a new system to be created by the five largest
nuclear powers as common allies under a multi-polar paradigm.
After speaking about
Russia’s vision for internal improvements, Putin shifted towards the
international arena saying:
“I am convinced that it is
high time for a serious and direct discussion about the basic principles of a
stable world order and the most acute problems that humanity is facing. It is
necessary to show political will, wisdom, and courage. The time demands an
awareness of our shared responsibility and real actions.”
Calling for Russia, the USA,
UK, China, and France to organize a new architecture that goes far beyond
merely military affairs, Putin stated:
“The founding countries of
the United Nations should set an example. It is the five nuclear powers that
bear a special responsibility for the conservation and sustainable development
of humankind. These five nations should first of all start with measures to
remove the prerequisites for global war and develop updated approaches to
ensuring stability on the planet that would fully take into account the
political, economic and military aspects of modern international relations.”
Putin’s emphasis that “the
United Nations should set an example” is not naïve fantasy, nor “crypto
globalist rhetoric” as some of his critics have stated.
Putin knows that the UN has
been misused by anti-nation state ideologues for a very long time. He also
knows his history better than his critics and is aware that the original
mandate of the United Nations was premised upon the defense of the sovereign
nation-state. Article 2.1 of the charter clearly says: “The Organization is
based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.”
For readers who are perhaps
rightfully cynical that such organizations as the UN could ever play a truly
positive role in world affairs, it is important to recall that the UN was never
intended to have any unilateral authority over nation-states, or military power
unto itself when was created in 1945. Its purpose was intended to provide a
platform for dialogue where sovereign nation-states could harmonize their
policies and overcome misunderstanding with the aim of protecting the general
welfare of the people of the earth. Articles 1.3-4 state clearly that the UN’s
is designed “to achieve international co-operation in solving international
problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in
promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms
for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion and to be a
center for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common
ends.”
If the United Nations
principles as enunciated in its pre-amble and core articles were to ever be followed (just
like America’s own admirable constitution): then wars of aggression and regime
change would not be possible. Article 2.4 directly addresses this saying: “All
Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use
of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any
state”.
These principles stand in
stark contrast to the earlier 1919 Round Table/RIIA-orchestrated attempt at a
post-national world order under the failed League of Nations which was
rightfully put out of its
misery by
nationalists of the 1920s. FDR’s 1944 vision, as Putin is well aware, was based
not on “world government”, but rather upon the concept of a community of
sovereign nations collaborating on vast development and infrastructure projects
which were intended to be the effect of an “internationalization” of the New
Deal that transformed America in the years following the Great
Depression. The closest
approximation to this spirit in practice in our modern age is found in China’s
Belt and Road Initiative.
Thousands of Asian, African
and South American engineers, and statesmen were invited to visit the USA
during the 1930s and the early 1940s to study the Tennessee Valley Authority
and other great New Deal water, agriculture and energy projects in order to
bring those ideas back to their countries as a driver to break out of the
shackles of colonialism both politically, culturally and economically. In
opposition to FDR, Churchill the unrepentant racist was okay with offering
political independence, but never the cultural or economic means to achieve it.
Although the world devolved
into an Anglo-American alliance with FDR’s death in 1945, the other Bretton
Woods Institutions which were
meant to provide international
productive credit to those large scale infrastructure projects to end
colonialism were taken over by FDR’s enemies who purged the IMF and World Bank
of all loyalists to FDR’s international New Deal vision throughout the years of
the red scare. Whether these corrupt financing institutions can be brought back
to their original intention or whether they must simply be replaced with new
lending mechanisms such as the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank, BRICS New
Development Bank or Silk Road Investment Fund remains to be seen.
What is vital to keep in
mind is that Putin (just like FDR before him) knows that neither Britain nor
Britain’s Deep State loyalists in America can be trusted. Yet, in spite of
their mistrust, they both knew that a durable world order could only be
accomplished if these forces were reined in under a higher law imposed by the
authority of truly sovereign nations, and this is why FDR’s post-war plans
involved a USA-Russia-China-UK partnership to provide the impetus to global
development initiatives and achieve the goals of the Atlantic Charter. This
partnership was sabotaged over FDR’s dead body as the Cold War and Truman
Doctrine broke that alliance. The goal of ending colonialism had to wait
another 80 years.
At the 2007 Munich Security
Conference, Putin had already laid his insight into history clearly on the
table when he said:
“This universal, indivisible
character of security is expressed as the basic principle that “security for
one is security for all”. As Franklin D. Roosevelt said during the first few
days that the Second World War was breaking out: “When peace has been broken
anywhere, the peace of all countries everywhere is in danger… I consider that
the unipolar model is not only unacceptable but also impossible in today’s
world. And this is not only because if there was individual leadership in
today’s – and precisely in today’s – world, then the military, but political
and economic resources also would not suffice. What is even more important is
that the model itself is flawed because at its basis there is and can be no
moral foundations for modern civilization.”
Putin is not naïve to call
for the United Nations charter to serve as the guiding light of a new military,
political, economic architecture. Nor is he naïve to think that such
untrustworthy nations as the USA, UK, and France should serve in partnership
with Russia and China since Putin knows that it will be Russia and China
shaping the terms of the new system and not the collapsing basket-cases of the
west whose excess bluff and bluster betrays a losing hand, which is why certain
forces have been so desperate to overthrow the poker table over the past few
years. The fact that Putin, Xi, and their growing allies have not permitted
this chaos agenda to unfold has not only driven “end of history” imperialists
into rage fits but also gives FDR’s vision for a community of sovereign
nation-states a second chance at life.
ABOUT VT EDITORS
VT Editors is a General
Posting account managed by Jim W. Dean and Gordon Duff. All content herein is owned and copyrighted by Jim
W. Dean and Gordon Duff
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.