Chủ Nhật, 10 tháng 9, 2017

Auto news on Youtube Sep 10 2017

AR - TN State Line at 5 AM

Tennessee - Arkansas State Line, Interstate 55

For more infomation >> ROAD TRIP: ARKANSAS - TENNESSEE STATE LINE - INTERSTATE 40 - USA - Duration: 3:29.

-------------------------------------------

Moscow Comments Diplomatic Confrontation Between Russia & United States - Duration: 10:58.

We have taken note of comments that came

from the US State Department's press service

on bilateral relations and responses to what were,

let's face it,

hostile actions by the US with regard

to diplomatic property and Russian diplomats.

I would like to quote from this statement.

During the course of a briefing the US State Department

explained the reason for the mayhem taking place

on the territory of Russian properties,

including San Francisco and other cities.

"The whole reason why it happened

is that the Russian Government has demanded parity.

They asked many of our staff to vacate our facilities

in Russia,

and we are trying to achieve parity here."

I have a simple question to the US State Department:

from what moment do you count

the response measures as having begun?

We have also taken note that the press service

of the US State Department has repeatedly said

that the only aim the US really seeks

is to establish normal relations with Russia and,

of course normalisation of the whole range

of bilateral ties and contacts.

How does everything that is happening on the territory

of the Russian Federation building,

which used to house the Russian General Consulate

in San Francisco,

contribute to normalising the situation?

Why are people whom we do not know

and whom no one has invited there engaged

in who knows what?

Do they also "contribute to the normalisation

of bilateral relations"?

Who sent them there?

For what purpose?

What are they doing there?

Why do they feel like they can make themselves

at home there?

It is the property of the Russian Federation.

What are US citizens doing there?

This week a good deal has been said about

the searches which,

we understand,

were instigated by the FBI.

Incidentally,

perhaps this is the core of the problem.

Perhaps the US State Department really seeks

normalisation of relations with the Russian Federation

and what we hear at the US State Department briefings

are quite sincere statements.

Perhaps it is the case that the Unite States

simply does not have a single

and comprehensive agenda with regard

to the Russian Federation.

Because from our information and,

as we understand it,

everything that is taking place with regard

to Russian diplomats,

perhaps behind it all are, among others,

members of the American special services

and specifically the FBI.

In effect,

the property

of our diplomatic agency has been raided and seized.

I would like to touch upon the legal

and moral aspect of the issue.

Diplomatic immunity and inviolability

of diplomatic premises are,

of course, the rules of the game,

enshrined in international law,

which enable states,

even at a time of very acute crises,

to be able to interact in a civilised manner.

The key phrase is,

even at the time of the most acute crises,

wars and ruptures in diplomatic relations.

This was the whole point of creating and introducing

the concept of "diplomatic immunity."

But how does one conduct a dialogue

and build relations if the partner violates

the agreements it has recognised as a subject

of international law?

This phrase should also be pondered,

not passed over but looked into more deeply.

The United States felt it could afford

to ignore the Vienna Convention

on Diplomatic Relations of 1961

and the Vienna Convention

on Consular Relations of 1963

two fundamental documents

of diplomatic law.

The United States as the host state is obliged to respect

and protect the consular premises and consular archive

and not try to use these documents

for its own purposes.

Even to just enter the territory

of the General Consulate the US authorities had

to get the consent of the head of the Mission.

The FBI did not bother to do this,

and what's more,

the agents said in so many words that they would force

their way through the entrance door.

What was their aim?

Was it not an attempt of the American special services

to stage an anti-Russian provocation

and perhaps plant compromising materials

in the building and then find them?

Because we haven't the faintest idea

of what they are doing now.

Special equipment and technology have been brought in

some kind of work is going on and, of course,

nobody informs anybody about it.

In September 2012,

Islamist extremists attacked the US Consulate in Libya.

They broke into the building and set it on fire.

This caused the death of four US citizens,

including Ambassador Chris Stevens.

Ten Libyan policemen also died.

At that time, in 2012,

US President Obama described the illegal intrusion

into the territory of the country's Consulate

as a violation of the very ideals

on which the UN was founded in its time.

Why is it that today

it is not representatives

of rebels, revolutionaries

or some mercenaries,

but the representatives

of the US law-enforcement bodies that are violating

the same international legal norms

as were violated by the Libyan militants?

When did the US establishment cross that

"red line" not only from the legal,

but also moral point of view?

Perhaps when it first blocked the condemnation

by the UN Security Council

of another in a series of mortar attacks

on the Russian diplomatic mission

in Damascus or perhaps when

out Embassy in Kiev was attacked?

Perhaps these are links in the same chain?

When no measures of political protection through

the reaction of states and international organisations

were taken with regard to Russian diplomatic property

and the facilities covered by diplomatic immunity?

At the time all this was blocked.

Earlier we said that the blocking was done

by Western colleagues,

today we say openly that the US was behind it.

Some Western media say that Russia and the US

are exchanging tough diplomatic measures

on a tit-for-tat basis.

It is important to remember who kicked off this string

of events.

It was not Russia but the United States.

Commenting on the forcible closure

of Russian diplomatic institutions,

the press service of the US State Department

declared that these are "symmetrical actions

in response to the cut of the American mission

in the Russian Federation."

True, the US State Department press service chose

to ignore the fact that it was the US that initially expelled

35 Russian diplomats from the country

and deprived our country of two facilities

that were under diplomatic immunity.

Still earlier, in 2016,

the US State Department cancelled the accreditation

of five of our honorary consuls in various states.

You forgot?

It never happened?

Yes, it did happen.

I am a hundred per cent sure that those who work today

at the US State Department have

no idea what happened a year ago.

I am sure no one knows about the honorary consuls.

But I would like to remind you that their accreditation

was cancelled by the US.

And yet at the time Russia refrained

from retaliatory measures – talking about parity

which the US State Department press service

is playing up.

It was only a new round of sanctions

and Washington's decision to refer Russia

to the world "axis of evil" that prompted

the Russian side to revise the size

of the American diplomatic mission in the country.

And again, speaking about parity,

I would like to remind you that the Permanent Mission

of the Russian Federation to the UN is functioning

on the US territory.

How about parity?

They didn't count it either?

A new tonality of relations is being imposed on us,

this is being done now, practically every day –

going backwards, rejecting cooperation,

including at the level of contacts between our peoples.

The search incident is not the first instance

when the US crudely violated international law.

Such behaviour does not behoove

a subject of international law,

a permanent member of the UN Security Council,

which was among the founders of the modern system

of international relations.

Unfortunately,

it threatens to become not just a precedent,

but a new American tradition.

We believe that in this way the United States

is not only destabilising the Russian-American relations,

but the whole of global international order.

For more infomation >> Moscow Comments Diplomatic Confrontation Between Russia & United States - Duration: 10:58.

-------------------------------------------

The Mohican Top 25th Tiny Homes In The United States | Tiny House Listing - Duration: 7:09.

THE MOHICAN TOP 25TH TINY HOMES IN THE UNITED STATES

Không có nhận xét nào:

Đăng nhận xét