The European Parliament’s non-binding resolution is a PR attempt driven by a political agenda
On Wednesday, members of the European Parliament adopted a resolution recognizing Russia as a sponsor of terrorism. The move follows a similar vote by the NATO parliamentary committee just two days earlier, in response to demands from the Ukrainian delegation.
With NATO, it could not be otherwise, given that the bloc justified its post-Cold War existence by constantly playing on the need to oppose Moscow. And it would be unnecessary without the propaganda of the “Russian threat”.
So what exactly is the European Parliament’s end game?
The block has no relevance “State sponsor of terrorism” designation and resolution indicate that. “The EU maintains a list of individuals, groups and entities involved in terrorist acts subject to sanctions, but unlike countries such as the US and Canada, the existing legal framework does not provide for the designation of a state as a sponsor. terrorism” one of the lines is read. The resolution is not legally binding, and Russia has already been hit with an unprecedented number of sanctions, with more being added all the time. So what does Brussels hope to achieve beyond confusing Western-led PR efforts? “Russia” and “terrorism” in the public mind?
Parliament has spent the past few years – long before the Ukraine conflict escalated – citing Russia alongside de facto terrorist groups such as ISIS. “The resolution of the Foreign Relations Committee of the European Parliament states that propaganda pressure on the EU by Russia and Islamic terrorist organizations is increasing. Strasbourg, for example, announced in October 2016. This is a particularly terrible combination “terrorism”, “ISIS”, and “Russia,” Because at that time, Moscow was at the forefront of the fight against the Islamic State in Syria at the invitation of President Bashar Assad, and as a result of Washington’s training and supplies, “syrian rebels” some joined the actual jihadist group: Al Qaeda.
Wednesday’s resolution reverses that history by labeling the Syrian government as terrorists. “Russia has supported and financed terrorist regimes and organizations in Syria, especially the Assad regime, which has been armed and defended by Russia, and has carried out deliberate attacks on the Syrian civilian population.” according to the decision.
Similarly, the EU has had a whole eight years to condemn the West’s training, equipping and financing of Azov fighters – formerly de facto non-state actors in violence in Ukraine. “neo-nazis” By the Western press – before they joined the Ukrainian army and were rebranded as freedom fighters against Russia. Democratic congressman Ro Khanna even pointed out in 2018 that for years the US Congressional funding bill had been stripped of language banning the supply of American weapons. “Ukraine Controversial Ultranationalist Militia Openly Embracing Neo-Nazis”.
While the EU has done nothing to prevent or stop the conflict — for example, refusing to cut off its cheap energy supplies from Russia and instead insisting that Kyiv and its main benefactor Washington work things out with Moscow — the resolution redoubles EU officials’ anti-Russian rhetoric. increases. “Russia’s attempt to use energy exports as a means of geopolitical coercion means using energy resources as a weapon.” he sings, ignoring that it is EU officials who brag about cutting off their own energy supply.for Ukraine”.
“On September 26, 2022, damage to the Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines resulted in a major gas leak in the Baltic Sea, an environmental attack on the EU.” The resolution also says, without any evidence, that Russia blew up its own energy infrastructure, not Western interests seeking to ensure the EU’s dependence on its own gas sales, for example.
Block-level resolution is not mandatory, meaning it is mostly a symbolic action. French President Emmanuel Macron has repeatedly rejected Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s calls for a similar appointment to Russia. So does US President Joe Biden, who admits that this move could have a negative impact on America’s support for Ukrainian fighters.
America’s past use of the term “terrorism” tends to fit comfortably with its own foreign policy agenda. Iran’s Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MeK) opposition group has been conveniently removed from Washington’s official terrorist organization list, and several high-ranking US officials have begun visiting the group as they talk about regime change in Iran. While former President Donald Trump claimed victory in securing peace in the Middle East with the Ibrahim Accords, he threatened to delist Sudan as a state sponsor of terrorism if he agreed with Israel. Former President Barack Obama removed Cuba from the list because of its continued policy of normalization with Havana, but Trump reinstated the name by appealing to his voter base.
So now it’s probably the EU’s turn to abuse the ‘terrorism’ label and divert attention from the bloc’s own bad choices.
The statements, opinions and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of RT.