WATCH: UN Spokesman Lies About U.S. Military Presence in Syria, Immediately Gets Fact-Checked

As is the rule of thumb with the White House diversity hire, if a UN spokesman’s lips are moving, he’s probably lying.

Asked recently whether the unconstitutional war in Syria (there is no constitutionally required Congressional declaration of war on Syria per Article 1, Section 8, just as there hasn’t been for any of the universally illegal U.S. wars since WWII), a UN spokesman flailed and obfuscated, to spectacular effect.

From the March 24 press briefing by the Office of the Spokesperson for the Secretary-General (emphases added):

Question:  A couple of questions on Syria.  Yesterday, there [was] a drone attack to a US base in north-east Syria which resulted in one death and six injured.  After that, US launched an air strike, also killed 11 people in Syria.  Any reaction from the Secretary-General on this incident?

Deputy Spokesman:  Oh, well, of course, we continue to be worried about all of the continuing tensions, and we are trying to see what can be done to lower the tensions from different forces in Syria and will continue with those efforts.

Question:  Do you not urge everybody to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Syria?

Deputy Spokesman:  Well, of course, that’s a given, and obviously, it’s important that the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Syria is respected.  At the same time, you’re aware of the complexity of the situation of foreign forces, but we call for them to exercise restraint.

Question:  But, do you think the presence of the US military in Syria is illegal or not?

Deputy Spokesman:  That’s not an issue that we’re dealing with at this stage.  There’s been a war.

Question:  But, is that… because it sounds very familiar this week.  We talk a lot about the UN Charter, the international law and relative resolutions.  But, it sounds to me, a foreign ministry based presence in another country without invitation, sounds like something else to me.

Deputy Spokesman:  I’ll leave your analysis to you.  That there’s… At this stage there’s no…

Question:  What’s the difference between the situation in Syria and the situation in Ukraine?

(The journalist could have framed this question more clearly; he apparently meant to ask what the difference is between the two conflicts in terms of legally unjustified, hostile military operations in a sovereign country.)

Exclusively for our VIPs: Beware the UN in March: UN Secretary-General Loves to Flatter Terrorists and Tyrants

Not a PJ Media VIP yet? Sign up here!

Continuing:

Deputy Spokesman:  There’s no US armed forces inside of Syria.  And so I don’t have a… It’s not a parallel situation to some of the others.

Question:  You’re sure there’s no US military personnel in Syria?

Deputy Spokesman:  I believe there’s military activity.  But, in terms of a ground presence in Syria, I’m not aware of that.

Talk about splitting hairs! There’s “military activity” but because there’s no ongoing ground invasion of Damascus or whatever, the UN propagandist apparently believes “there’s no US armed forces inside of Syria.”

Continuing:

Question:  Okay.  Five US service members were injured in that attack.  If there were no US service members in Syria, how could they [get] injured?  That’s weird, right?  Should I ask you about that?  And by the way, if you’re talking about the resolution, the international law here is the resolution from Security Council 2254 (2015), I believe, it says in its PA [preambular] paragraph, “reaffirming its strong commitment to the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic and to the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations”.

Deputy Spokesman:  Yes.  I’m aware of that.  And as you see, that is accepted by the members of the Security Council itself.

Question:  Yeah.  So, again, back to my question, is that illegal to have presence in Syria for the US base, according to the relevant resolution that I just read out?

Deputy Spokesman:  The relevant resolution does call for that and we call on all countries to respect that.  I wouldn’t go beyond that at this stage.

What’s really going on here, of course, is that the U.S. government spends (some would say squanders) a full quarter of its $50 billion annual “foreign aid”  budget on the UN, making it the single largest contributor to the transnational organization. The UN knows where its bread is buttered and therefore knows better than to contradict the official line.

Furthermore, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, for all his many faults — just like Jair Bolsonaro of Brazil and Viktor Orban of Hungary and dozens of other examples around the globe — is not on board with the UN/World Economic Forum-led project to dismantle the very concept of the nation-state and replace it with a multinational corporate technocracy. His, and Syrians’, interests do not align with theirs. The political destabilization of his country, which has been ongoing since the advent of ISIS, is, at best, a neutral development from the UN’s perspective or, more likely, actively encouraged from within its halls of power.