For example:
"The United Nations general assembly has overwhelmingly backed a motion condemning Britain's occupation of the remote Chagos Islands in the Indian Ocean. The 116-6 vote left the UK diplomatically isolated and was also a measure of severely diminished US clout on the world stage. Washington had campaigned vigorously at the UN and directly in talks with national capitals around the world in defence of the UK's continued control over the archipelago, where there is a US military base at Diego Garcia. The vote was in support of a motion setting a six-month deadline for Britain to withdraw from the Chagos island chain and for the islands to be reunified with neighbouring Mauritius. It endorsed an advisory opinion issued by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in February, calling on the UK to relinquish its hold on the territory in order to complete the process of decolonisation." (UK suffers crushing defeat in UN vote on Chagos Islands, Owen Bowcott/Julian Borger, theguardian.com, 23/5/19)
Right... so who comprised this charmless, colonial gang of six who voted against self-determination for the dispossessed and dispersed Chagossian islanders? Wouldn't you know it:
The US, Hungary, Israel, Australia, UK and the Maldives.
Not, mind you, that, with the Murdoch press trumpeting Morrison as The Messiah from The Shire, you'd expect to see this telling information in the Australian msm.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Not Palau or the Marshall Islands then? Daddy says jump, little Scotty whimpers how high. Australia is a fully subservient vassal state of the Anglo Zionist Empire, and it'd be interesting to go back say 10 years and count (on one hand?) how often Australia has voted against the United States vote. The above example you give here is one of numerous reasons why I avoid the mainstream 'media' incl. ABC. Keep up the excellent work MERC.
I was intrigued by Hungary and did a google search. It revealed this:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/netanyahu-orb-n-israel-welcome-hungary-prime-minister-antisemitism-a8454866.html
It is hard to reconcile Australia’s foreign policies on the Chagos Archipelago and Chinese activities in the South China Sea.
The International Court of Justice in a non-binding decision made a finding that having regard to international law, the process of decolonization of Mauritius was not lawfully completed when that country acceded to independence in 1968, following the separation of the Chagos Archipelago.
Australia’s vote in the UN General Assembly amounts to a rejection of that finding.
The Australian 2016 Defence White paper proclaimed that Australia’s security and prosperity “relies on a stable, rules-based global order which supports the peaceful resolution of disputes, facilitates free and open trade and enables unfettered access to the global commons to support economic development.”
According to the White paper, underpinning this rules-based global order, “is a broad architecture of international governance which has developed since the end of the Second World War. This governance framework, including the United Nations, international laws and conventions and regional security architectures, has helped support Australia’s security and economic interests for 70 years.”
Australia, China, the United Kingdom and the United States are signatories to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. While Australia, China and the UK have ratified the Convention, the United States has not.
Numerous failed attempts at US ratification of the treaty have foundered because ratification is seen in the US as a threat to its sovereignty and a limit on American exceptionalism. Of course the failure of the US to ratify the treaty has not stopped it using the treaty as a tool against China in respect of the latter’s activities in the South China Sea.
For some years Australia, as expected has been parroting US condemnations of Chinese “aggression” in seizing coral reefs in the South China Sea and creating artificial islands with naval installations and landing strips.
Needless to say, China’s activities do not involve the forced depopulation of several thousand people from the seized coral reefs.
No news here Merc, just as expected from our vassal state.
More interesting to me is the comment from Gazza Potts in the last thread.
After their experience in Syria, just how powerful and threatening to the Zionist entity is Hezbollah? I suspect that it is supreme - especially after their last victory - hence - the push by Bolton and the neocons for a USA-led war initiative. They are becoming desperate. Without USA involvement, the entities' expansion - and perhaps their very survival - is in doubt.
This consideration must surely be a factor in the desperate neocon push for war now.
Hi anonymous, just saw this. The Neocons are getting desperate indeed, and the more desperate they get.... Have seen numerous videos and speeches by Hassan Nasrallah, and he is not only very impressive, he speaks the truth. I regard Hezbollah as a legitimate resistance organisation that is also the first line of defence against attacks from Israel. I also believe their victory over Israel in 2006 has given them a huge psychological boost. Plus, from sources elsewhere, they have thousands of rockets pointed straight at their neighbour.
Post a Comment