Cunt wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2023 2:49 pm
Brian Peacock wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2023 2:36 pm
So you've only got impugning Joe's character and intellect left now.
Huh?
I just pointed out the article's title credits try to credit Creesh with an accusation he reported.
It would take genuine gullability to think the story originated with him. Of course, the headline doesn't say that, it just implies it as heavily as it can without clearly lying...
But if you think it originated with BioClandestine, you fell for bullshit.
The UN doesn't even know his name, as they hide from the same accusations. From two of the most influential world leaders on the planet.
https://press.un.org/en/2022/15095.doc.htm
Security Council Rejects Text to Investigate Complaint Concerning Non-Compliance of Biological Weapons Convention by Ukraine, United States
Abstaining Delegation Says Allegations by Russian Federation Lacked Evidence
The Security Council today failed to adopt a resolution put forth by the Russian Federation to set up a commission consisting of all members of the Council to investigate its complaint about the non-compliance by the United States and Ukraine with their obligations under the Biological Weapons Convention.
The draft resolution only received support from one other Council Member — China — with France, the United States and the United Kingdom voting against it, and the 10 remaining Council members abstaining from voting.
Now why would the US vote to keep their Ukraine activities from inspection? We know they have biolabs there, and that Victoria Nuland was worried they would fall into Russian possession. Why keep hiding things when we already know what she admitted?
Or why would they dump SO much money into a border across the world, while not being able to afford to secure their own?
Maybe the Ghost of Kiev will swoop in to save them.
So you got all that from the headline. Imagine how much you would have learned reading the article.
It appears you didn't even read your own source, and missed the opportunity to learn why Russia could only get one other vote from the 15 member UN Security Council.
JUAN GÓMEZ ROBLEDO VERDUZCO (Mexico) stated that his country had abstained because the provisions of article VI of the Biological Weapons Convention have not been fulfilled. Recalling that the party alleging such violations needs to provide evidence to activate the next step, he pointed out that this has not happened either in the debate or in the consultation process for this draft resolution. He further noted that it is not realistic to believe that a commission can be set up as proposed and can present a report with recommendations to the Council in a period of 28 days. Nevertheless, he highlighted that the forthcoming review conference of the Convention is an ideal forum to consider the comments made by the Russian Federation.
LINDA THOMAS-GREENFIELD (United States) said she voted against the draft, as “it is based on disinformation, dishonesty, bad faith and a total lack of respect to this body”. Underscoring the importance of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, she said her country takes its responsibilities as a State party seriously and fulfils its obligations accordingly, assisting partners in strengthening health security and reducing the impact of infectious disease, adding: “Such cooperation must not be stigmatized.” During the consultative meeting held on article V in Geneva, the Russian Federation failed to present evidence to support its false allegations, she said. Despite that country’s abuse of the process, her country and Ukraine went through the Russian Federation’s allegations “point by point and debunked every single one”. Therefore, she continued, this meeting is a milestone, as the Russian Federation’s delegate said, adding: “It is a milestone for the Russian Federation’s deception and lies.” She went on, stating: “When they failed in Geneva, they raised their false claims here, abusing its position and abusing us.” Instead of focusing on such claims, the Council should focus on the truth and the horrors inflicted by the Russian Federation on the Ukrainian people, she stressed.
AMARNATH ASOKAN (India) said that any matter relating to the obligations under the Biological Weapons Convention should be addressed as per the Convention and through consultations and cooperation between the relevant parties. He underscored the need to negotiate a comprehensive legally binding protocol providing for an effective, universal and non-discriminatory verification mechanism. This is necessary to strengthen the Convention and its implementation by States parties, he said, voicing hope that the current situation will provide the impetus for early consideration, negotiation and finalization of such a protocol by the States parties. Factoring these various aspects, India decided to abstain from voting on the resolution, he said.
CAÍT MORAN (Ireland) stressed that no substantive or credible evidence has been presented by the Russian Federation to support its allegations, either through the article V consultative meeting in Geneva in September or in the materials submitted to the Council. She added that her country had abstained because it does not see the proposed investigation by the Council as either justifiable or useful. Noting that Moscow is attempting to misuse the Convention and the Council as a platform for its disinformation to justify its unjustifiable and unlawful invasion of Ukraine, she asked to stop these deeply cynical and harmful actions that risk undermining key multilateral arms control agreements as well as international cooperation into vital health research.
FERIT HOXHA (Albania) said he abstained from voting on the draft as the claims put forth by the Russian Federation are unsubstantiated and uncorroborated; that country has failed to provide credible evidence to support the need for an article VI investigation. He called on the Russian Federation to end its aggression on Ukraine and bring its troops home, “instead of misusing the Council and polluting its work with disinformation and fantasies”.
TRINE SKARBOEVIK HEIMERBACK (Norway) said her country abstained from voting as it does not wish to set a negative precedent in the use of article VI of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention. Norway has meticulously reviewed the documents annexed to the Russian complaint under article VI of the Convention, which consist predominantly of assertions, interpretations and conclusions by the Russian Federation itself. Recalling that the same accusations were dealt with in September during the formal article V consultations, she said the Russian Federation has failed to demonstrate probable cause for further investigative steps. Emphasizing that it is “deeply problematic that the State that has lodged the complaint with the Security Council itself has ‘taken the pen’ and submitted the resolution that addresses the complaint”, she called on the Russian Federation to end its “relentless campaign of disinformation and stop congesting the Council’s agenda with patently unfounded requests related to the situation in Ukraine”.
BARBARA WOODWARD (United Kingdom) said her country voted against the resolution to protect the integrity of the Convention and prevent it from being undermined by unfounded accusations. Pointing to the Russian Federation’s false allegations of biological activities, she recalled that Ukraine and the United States provided a comprehensive response in September. The Russian Federation’s allegations have no credible basis in fact and its long-standing disinformation efforts undermine peaceful biological cooperation under article X, she stressed, urging the Council to defend peaceful biological cooperation against unfounded malicious allegations.
MICHAEL KAPKIAI KIBOINO (Kenya) stressed that any actions which may undermine the Convention, especially in a world grappling with the effects of a pandemic, should be avoided, pointing to the importance of respecting existing conventions and norms that ensure international cooperation remains unimpeded. He noted that any credible allegations of the use of weapons of mass destruction should be treated with the seriousness they deserve.
GENG SHUANG (China) said he voted in favour of the draft as threats to biosecurity know no borders. Recalling that the Russian Federation has been raising its allegations in the Council since March about the biological activities taking place in Ukraine, he said that any concerns about compliance with the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention deserve thorough and to-the-point clarifications by the parties concerned. Although a formal consultative meeting was held to resolve such issues in September, he said, regrettably, a set of questions put forth by the Russian Federation were not answered. Therefore, the Russian Federation submitted its allegations to the Council, which was reasonable, legitimate and should not be blocked. A fair and transparent investigation can address compliance concerns and help uphold the authority of the Convention.
JOÃO GENÉSIO DE ALMEIDA FILHO (Brazil), noting his country’s consideration of documents made available by the Russian Federation and the discussions in Geneva, said that currently the necessary conditions for the initiation of an investigation under article VI of the Convention have not been met. Brazil is committed to the resumption of negotiations towards adoption of a binding verification protocol that strengthens implementation of the Biological Weapons Conventions regarding the exclusive peaceful use of knowledge and technologies in the field of life sciences. The situation in the Council today only reinforces the necessity of establishing such a mechanism, he pointed out, noting that the next review conference presents an opportunity for Council members to re-engage in such discussions without delay. While such a protocol is not adopted, States parties must strengthen the mechanisms of transparency and confidence-building available under the framework of the Convention by sharing the broadest range of information regarding research projects on topics related to the Convention.
MOHAMED ISSA ABUSHAHAB (United Arab Emirates) stated that since article VI of the Convention has never been applied, the Council should be prudent and deliberate when establishing new precedents. He pointed out that there should be a broad agreement among Council members on the triggers and modalities to proceed with article VI. Given the lack of such an agreement on the draft resolution presented today, he noted that his country chose to abstain.
NICOLAS DE RIVIÈRE (France) said the results of the vote are “unassailable”, demonstrating that “nobody is duped by the Russian Federation’s lies”. France voted against the draft, he continued, adding: “If words are stripped of their meaning, and if truth and lies are considered on an equal footing, diplomacy is no longer possible.” France evaluated the so-called evidence in detail; the allegations are unfounded. These conclusions were already drawn during the consultations in this regard in Geneva, he said, adding that the Russian Federation itself said it had no new information. The Russian Federation will respond to the results of the vote by passing itself off as a victim and try to teach lessons on international law, he said, stating that this will be “risible if the facts weren’t cause for tears”. The Russian Federation is engaged in a war of aggression against its neighbour and is illegally annexing Ukraine’s territory. He called on the Russian Federation to cease its campaign of disinformation and expressed regret about that country’s instrumentalization of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention.
HAROLD ADLAI AGYEMAN (Ghana), Council President for the month, speaking in his national capacity, said he abstained from the vote, due to the nonconsensual outcome of the meeting held in Geneva, despite his country’s repeated proposition that a conclusive determination of Ukraine’s biological programmes could only be made after further assessment by relevant institutions. As a State party to the Biological Weapons Convention, Ghana believes in the right for States parties to engage in consultations and cooperate with each other to reach a solution in the event of any complaints of violations of the Convention, as agreed in article V, and is of the view that a necessary condition for the invocation of article VI, for a formal investigation into a complaint, should be a compelling prima facie case. He went on to reiterate that while he takes seriously issues related to the threat of use and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, he also acknowledges the right set out in article X of the Convention, which accords States parties the right to participate in the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the use of bacteriological (biological) agents and toxins for peaceful purposes.
