The GCC and NATO lose their leadership

The GCC and NATO lose their leadership
by Thierry Meyssan -Voltaire Network – 5 February, 2012

Contrary to her position at the time of the attack on Iraq, in the case of Syria France failed to defend the principles of international law, rallying instead the imperial camp and its lies. Together with the United Kingdom and the United States, she has suffered a diplomatic defeat of historic proportions, while Russia and China have become the champions of the sovereignty of peoples and peace. The new international balance of power is not only a consequence of the United States’ military decline, it is also a penalty for their falling prestige. Ultimately, Western powers have lost the leadership they enjoyed throughout the twentieth century, having forsaken all legitimacy by betraying their own values​​.

On two occasions, 4 October 2011 and 4 February 2012, permanent members of the UN Security rebuffed draft resolutions on the situation in Syria. This showdown has pitted members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) against those of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).

The end of the unipolar world

This quadruple veto seals the end of a period of international relations that began with the collapse of the Soviet Union and witnessed the undivided domination of the United States over the rest of the world. It does not signify a return to the previous bipolar system, but the emergence of a new model whose contours are yet to be defined. None of the New World Order projects have been achieved. Washington and Tel Aviv have failed to institutionalize the unipolar governance they intended to impose as an inviolable paradigm, while the BRICS fell short of creating a multipolar system that would have enabled its members to rise to the highest level.

As Syrian strategist Imad Fawzi Shueibi had rightly anticipated, the Syrian crisis has crystallized a new balance of power, and from there a redistribution of power that no one had foreseen or wanted, but which must be accepted as an inescapable reality. [1]

In retrospect, Hillary Clinton’s “leadership from behind” doctrine appears as an attempt by the United States to test their limits, while shifting the responsibility on their British and, especially, French allies. Yet, it was they who burst on the scene imposing themselves as political and military leaders during the overthrow of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, something they hoped to live through again by toppling the Syrian Arab Republic, even if they did so as vassals and sub-contractors of the U.S. empire. So it is London and Paris, even more than Washington, that suffered a diplomatic defeat and bear the consequences in terms of loss of influence. …more