by Stephen Lendman

UN Secretary-Generals pledge to uphold UN Charter provisions. Under Chapter XV, Article 100, they're mandated "not (to) seek or receive instructions from any government or from any other authority external to the Organization."

"Each Member of the United Nations undertakes to respect the exclusively international character of the responsibilities of the Secretary-General and the staff and not to seek to influence them in the discharge of their responsibilities."

On December 14, 2006, Ban Ki-moon was sworn in as UN Secretary-General. He pledged to:

• be accountable to meet global challenges;


• heal the divide and distrust that affects "too much of the UN's work;"


• to be "a man on a mission" to restore trust; and


• work to strengthen the UN's three pillars: "peace, development and human rights."

On January 1, 2012, Ban got a second term. "Together, no challenge is too large," he pledged. Nothing is "impossible."

He promised to be a "harmonizer and bridge-builder." He claimed credit for accomplishments he never achieved.

He named nuclear disarmament, advancing global health, sustainable development, education, saving lives, promoting democracy, supporting justice, championing human rights, and "creating a new dimension for the responsibility to protect."

Throughout his tenure, he's been polar opposite what he swore to uphold. He's a reliable imperial tool. His record reflects failure and betrayal. He consistently spurned core UN Charter provisions.

He's beholden to wealth and power. He's complicit with US, NATO and Israeli crimes of war, against humanity and genocide.

One of his first acts in office was to reverse the UN's longstanding opposition to capital punishment. It's especially barbaric in America and Israel.

At the time, he dismissively said enforcement "is for each and every member State to decide."

His so-called restructuring failed to address the Security Council's veto power. America abusively uses it.

At times, it's against the will of the vast majority of other nations. An observer once compared doing so to holding a World Series with one participant.

Ban consistently supports wrong over right. He's silent about the worst of Western and Israeli crimes. He blames victims for what harms them.

He's done nothing to denounce or deter Blue Helmet peacekeeper brutalizing occupations, extreme repression, murders, rape, sexual exploitation, corruption and other crimes.

He consistently defends the indefensible. He claims Western wars of aggression are liberating ones.

His "new dimension for the responsibility to protect" conceals support for missions designed to mass murder, destroy, occupy, plunder, exploit and otherwise abuse.

He's contemptuous of rule of law principles, fundamental human rights, and other democratic values. He's dismissive about Western and Israeli inflicted horrific human suffering.

His deplorable record earned him two terms. It's at the expense of billions worldwide.

He lies for power. He duplicitously sides with Obama's war on Syria. On September 13, The New York Times headlined "UN Chief Says Report Will Confirm Gas Massacre," saying:

The UN inspection report he commissioned will include "overwhelming" evidence of chemical weapons use.

Without direct attribution to Assad, he claimed he "committed many crimes against humanity." He said so despite no corroborating evidence.

He ignored clear proof of insurgent use of chemical weapons multiple times, numerous atrocities, and other high crimes.

UN inspectors are expected to present their report on Monday. According to The Times:

"A number of United Nations diplomats and arms control experts have said they expect that the evidence presented in the report will implicate Mr. Assad's side in the 30-month-old Syrian conflict."

They'll say sarin nerve gas was used. They'll lie claiming Syria, not insurgents, has access to it and other chemical weapons.

They'll ignore proved terrorists' use of sarin and other toxic agents. They've been caught red-handed numerous times.

By implication, they'll blame Assad for attacking Ghouta. On September 13, Infowars headlined "US Military: Al-Qaeda Rebels Produced Sarin Gas for Chemical Attacks in Syria," saying:

"A leaked US military document reveals that Al-Qaeda possessed and produced 'kitchen-grade' sarin gas for chemical attacks against the Syrian people…"

It's further proof "that the Al-Qaeda Syrian opposition launched the Aug. 21 chemical attack in Damascus…" It was "a false flag in order to frame Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad."

On September 13, Voltaire Network's Thierry Meyssan headlined:

"How the Western services fabricated the 'chemical attack' of Ghouta," saying:

They're "100% sure of things that aren't logical."

Children killed in Ghouta on August 21 "come from families" supporting Assad. Video evidence is fake. It's "dated...before" the incident occurred.

Western sources claim telecommunication evidence. "But they are not the ones who made those telephone interceptions."

US/UK/French claims about Assad use of chemical weapons in Ghouta are "utterly fabricated."

Their reports revealed conflicting assessments. Doing so makes them look like gangs unable to shoot straight.

Their analysis is worse than bad theater. They explained things in slapdash, keystone cops manner. They did so duplicitously. They lied. They blamed Assad for insurgent crimes.

Claims about number of victims ranged from several hundred or less to over 1,400. Videos and photos showed children "all about the same age."

With two exceptions, adults shown are all males. It's "the first time that a gas (attack) discriminate(d) according to" gender.

Children shown "are not victims of a chemical attack. (They) were kidnapped two weeks" earlier.

At "the beginning of August," they were abducted "in the Latakia region, 200km (from) Ghouta."

They disappeared. They resurfaced on videos. They were produced to falsely accuse Assad of the August 21 attack.

Families "still alive recognized them." Their children were "intravenous(ly)" poisoned. They were killed "in front of the cameras."

Washington, Britain and France fabricated evidence implicating Assad. Israel invented its own. Nothing cited passed the smell test.

Videos showed victims "trembling and drooling." It showed "white drool." Sarin poisoning causes "yellow" saliva.

The entire US/UK/French assessment was fabricated. It was done to blame Assad for insurgent crimes.

The same pattern occurred numerous times before. Doing so is commonplace imperial strategy.

Big Lies substitute for truth and full disclosure. Ban Ki-moon's complicit with Western crimes of war, against humanity and genocide.

John Kerry and Sergei Lavrov continue discussions in Geneva. Their agendas reflect major differences.

America's hell bent for war. Russia's going all out to prevent it. Debate continues over UN Security Council resolution language.

Russia won't accept use of force against Assad. It insists on resolving Syria's conflict diplomatically.

Kerry partly backed off on insisting that all necessary measures be available to enforce SC resolution provisions.

He's adamant so far on an impossible timeline. He wants Assad's chemical weapons placed under international control in two weeks or less. Some reports said one week.

He said "President Obama has made clear that should diplomacy fail, force might be necessary to deter and degrade Assad's capacity to deliver these weapons."

"This is not a game. It has to be real. It has to be comprehensive. It has to be verifiable. It has to be credible."

"It has to be timely and implemented in a timely fashion, and finally there ought to be consequences if it doesn't take place."

Russia's Kommesant newspaper leaked information about Moscow's peace proposal. It's in four stages. They include:

• Syria becoming a Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) signatory;


• declaring all its CW cites;


• placing them under international control; and


• agreeing to destroy them entirely, how, and by whom.

On September 14, Voice of Russia headlined "Obama may use force against Syria in circumvention of UN."

It's very much on the table. It's his option of choice. "US troops in Ft. Hood (got) orders to deploy to Syria."

"(V)enture capitalist Dan Bubalo cite(d) a 'close and verifiable source…' "

"According to Bubalo, the source's friend at Ft. Hood had received news that he was to be sent to Egypt for the next nine months."

Bubalo claimed his information was "sourced thoroughly." It contradicts Washington's "false reassurances."

An unnamed active duty soldier confirmed Bubalo's claim. It's true, he said. "A few of my fellow soldiers left last week. Others are setting up to go this weekend."

On September 14, Russia Today (RT) headlined "France submits Syria UN resolution with 'further measures' on the table."

It demands Syria place its chemical weapons under international control. It wants it done "immediately after (a) UN resolution is adopted to ensure that there is no more production, use or transfer of chemical weapons."

It "sets a 90-day deadline for all political parties in Syria to sit down and form a transitional government."

Doing so violates international law. No nation may interfere in the internal affairs of others. Syrians alone may choose who'll lead them. No foreign country or authority can decide for them.

A stronger earlier French draft was deceptively softened. It substituted "further measures" for use of force if Washington, Britain and/or France accuse Assad of violating Security Council resolution language.

Obama wants a range of consequences. He wants war. He'll manipulate things going forward to get it. He'll likely initiate another false flag.

Reports suggest one against Israel. Doing so would ensure congressional authorization for war. Opposition public sentiment would be ignored.

Peace is off the table. Regime change is prioritized. Obama's hell bent to oust Assad. He intends doing it belligerently.

It's happening less swiftly than he intended. Advancing America's imperial agenda matters most.

A Final Comment

On September 14, The New York Times headlined "Obama Demands 'Concrete' Acts by Syria on Chemical Weapons," saying:

"The United States and Russia have reached an agreement that calls for Syria’s arsenal of chemical weapons to be removed or destroyed by the middle of 2014, Secretary of State John Kerry said on Saturday."

A "framework" agreement calls for Syria to "submit a "comprehensive listing" of its chemical weapons stockpiles within a week."

It must include "names, types, and quantities of its chemical weapons, types of munitions, and location and form of storage, production and research and development facilities."

Syria must provide the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), UN and related personnel "with the immediate and unfettered right to inspect any and all (domestic) sites."

Government and opposition forces should provide security.

Failure to comply would refer Syria to the Security Council. Kerry insists on UN Charter Chapter 7 punishment.

It authorizes military force. Lavrov's adamant against it. Russia's veto is certain if proposed or suggested.

Free Syrian Army head Salim Idress rejects the joint US/Russian agreement. He called it a stalling tactic. He vowed to continue fighting. He wants Assad toppled.

It bears repeating. Obama's hell bent for war. Kerry and Lavrov agreeing means nothing.

Kerry said Assad "isn't about to" place his chemical weapons under international control "without delay, and allow a full and full accounting."

"(I)t can't be done, obviously."

Events going forward bear close watching. Obama wants war. He intends getting it. His timing alone now is changed.

-###-

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

His new book is titled "Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity"

http://www.claritypress.com/Lendman.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

It airs Fridays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour