Thread: Syria News and Editorials

Thanks Harry.
Some mods here are proper ^%$#*

Chinese journalists escorted by Syrian officials in planned visit report everything is just rosy. Quelle Surprise.

DARAA, Syria - Syria's southwestern border city Daraa appeared relatively quiet on Monday, 11 months after it came into international spotlight as the starting point of the country's protracted unrest.
Daraa, which has been shown in amateur videos spreading the internet as a turbulent city strewn with burnt vehicles, dead bodies and armed troops, appeared quiet and peaceful, as Xinhua reporters toured the city with escort of the Syrian government.
"No town is out of the government's control," Khaled Hanous, governor of Daraa, told reporters, touting the normalcy and order enjoyed by his citizens while blaming some international TV channels which he said fabricated stories that hindered the city's peace and order.
In mid-March last year, Daraa became the cradle of Syria's turmoil as thousands of angry people took to the street after 15 teenagers were arrested for painting anti-government graffiti on their school walls. It was alleged that the youth were tortured when imprisoned.
The present Daraa governor, who replaced the former one in last April amid the unrest, told Xinhua on Monday that the arrested young people had never been tortured, adding a few media outlets were making up stories as they had interviewed none of the teenagers.
He said normalcy has largely been restored in Daraa and security forces and army troops which entered the city to protect citizens from violence were withdrawn in last May.
During Xinhua reporters' tour of the streets of central and suburban Daraa, they saw no large presence of troops, armored vehicles or tanks.
Only a handful of army posts with fully-armed soldiers on the streets were standing behind sandbag bunkers, while some policemen were guarding the public facilities.
Most shops and restaurants on the streets were open, attracting the strolling people.
One of the main squares in the heart of Daraa, where conflicts among thousands of people took place in late March last year, appeared to be in order with a few vendors selling Arabic snacks and hot drinks.
Anwar, who owned a shop selling electronic products, said he had been keeping his shop open since last May, adding that the block he lived in were peaceful and normal.
However, a sense of gloom and tension was still noticeable. Streets and squares were strangely quiet an hour before noon and the usually fun-chasing Arabs rarely laughed or spoke out loud as usual.
An anonymous young woman in traditional Arab headwear told reporters in the square that "the situation is not good ... We fear to walk on streets, and we need safety and stability to be restored as it was."
When the Xinhua reporters were visiting the city's justice palace, which the government said had been ransomed and set ablaze by "armed terrorists," three teenagers with school bags approached reporters and whispered "we want freedom," and then quickly ran away.
Hanous, the governor of Daraa, confirmed the occasional incidents which he blamed on "armed gangs," saying that "there are masked gunmen on the ground shooting at law-enforcement forces. They hit and run, and rarely confront."
Xinhua reporters also visited a TV and radio station, which, according to its boss, was demolished by "armed groups" after its camera captured militants shooting at civilians.
The two-story building's windows were shattered and walls were blackened, while computers and stationery were scattering on the floor.
Naief al-Obeidat, head of the TV station, said the equipment and his staff had been moved to a government building for security concerns.
During the government-escorted tour in Daraa, which has lasted for several hours, Xinhua reporters neither heard gunshots nor saw any protests.

Originally Posted by ENT

Thanks Harry.
Some mods here are proper ^%$#*

I think I've cracked your code. Is one of the words "Retentive"?

Homs bombardment resumes as Russian minister heads to Syria

Rebel stronghold remains under siege, with opposition reporting at least 50 deaths from latest violence

• guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 7 February 2012 06.49 GMT

An explosion in Homs on Monday. The bombardment is reported to have continued on Tuesday morning as the Russian foreign minister heads to a meeting with the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad. Photograph: AFP




The city of Homs has come under fresh bombardment by the Syrian regime on Tuesday morning as Russia's foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, heads to a meeting where he will press President Bashar al-Assad to implement swift reform aimed at ending 11 months of deadly fighting.
Gunfire was reported as dawn broke in Homs where the main opposition Syrian National Council says at least 50 people were killed on Monday and activists claim 200 died in shelling over the weekend.
Syrian authorities, who have denied firing on houses, said security forces killed "tens of terrorists" in Homs on Monday morning. An interior ministry statement said six members of the security forces were killed in the clashes.
Activists said a blast hit an oil pipeline feeding a main refinery in Homs on Monday, the second attack in a week. Separately, three people died when the opposition-held town of Zabadani, near the Lebanese border, came under fire on Monday.
Local fighters said they would hit "regime targets" if the army did not pull back by Tuesday morning.
China and Russia on Saturday vetoed a UN security council resolution backing an Arab League call for Assad to give up power and start a political transition.

The United States shut its embassy in Damascus and said all staff had left the country due to worsening security.
Belgium and Britain recalled their ambassadors from Syria, and London said it would seek further European Union sanctions against the country.
The US president, Barack Obama, said that however hard western countries were prepared to lean on Assad diplomatically, they still had no intention of using force to topple him, as they did against Muammar Gaddafi in Libya last year. "I think it is very important for us to try to resolve this without recourse to outside military intervention. And I think that's possible," he told NBC's Today show.

Russia fought back against blistering criticism from the west for blocking the UN resolution. Lavrov said condemnations of Moscow's veto had verged on "hysteria". Lavrov's ministry said he was heading to Syria on Tuesday because Moscow sought "the swiftest stabilisation of the situation in Syria on the basis of the swiftest implementation of democratic reforms whose time has come".
Assad has promised political reforms including a new constitution followed by a parliamentary election, but has also pledged to crush "terrorists" he blames for the violence.

Syria's opposition, which rejected a Russian invitation for talks with Syrian officials in Moscow, says Assad's promised reforms are not credible after his crackdown on protests in which the United Nations says 5,000 people have been killed.

In addition to months of national unrest, the Syrian capital was hit by suicide bombings in December and January.
The Arab League secretary general, Nabil Elaraby, told Reuters he spoke to Lavrov on Monday and the foreign minister would present an initiative to Damascus. He gave no details and when asked if he thought it could end the crisis, he replied: "They believe so."
Russia argued that Saturday's draft UN resolution was one-sided and would have amounted to taking the side of Assad's opponents in a civil war. China also vetoed the measure, by most accounts following Russia's lead.
"Some of the voices heard in the west with evaluations of the results of the vote in the UN security council on the Syria resolution sound, I would say, improper, somewhere on the verge of hysteria," Lavrov said.

A chorus of European officials – and the US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, who called the veto a "travesty" – condemned Russia and China in terms unusually harsh by diplomatic norms and said they would bear responsibility for future bloodshed.

The French defence minister, Gerard Longuet, said on Monday: "There are political cultures which deserve a kick in the ass ... To accept that a dictator can operate freely is disgraceful for governments that accept it."
Qatar's Prime Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim, who leads the Arab League's ministerial committee on the Syrian crisis, told al-Jazeera he was shocked by Moscow and Beijing's stance and called for "clear steps to stop the bloodbath in Syria".

Clinton said on Sunday the United States would work with other nations to try to tighten sanctions against Assad's government and deny it arms in the absence of a UN resolution.
Syrian army defectors announced they were organising a new "Higher Revolutionary Council" to supersede the Free Syrian Army (FSA) as the main armed force battling Assad's rule. The new body would be commanded by General Ahmed al-Sheikh, the highest-ranking officer to defect to Turkey from government forces.
Russia, seeking to retain a foothold in the Middle East centred on its military ties with Damascus, may be torn between trying to bolster Assad and seeking his exit. It could take a middle path, trying to buy time by counselling the government to make some concessions and reduce the bloodshed.
"I think that now, after Russia imposed a veto, Lavrov [is] travelling to tell Assad that we did everything possible," said Fyodor Lukyanov, editor of the journal Russia in Global Affairs.

"Now the main task for Lavrov is to tell Assad that if there is no visible change in Syria, then regardless of the Russian position he should be bracing for external military measures."

Russia 'n China , there are no words ..................

You can only hope that Russia are going to pile on relentless pressure and try and make Assad stand down, so they can seen to be the hero in all of this.

But whether that will convince the Sunni, I doubt very much. They want political freedom and that goes against the Russian grain.

Talking of captured Iranians....

Turkey helps release of 11 kidnapped Iranians in Syria

7 February 2012, 08:35 (GMT+04:00)


Syria's Free Syrian Army (FSA) has said Turkey mediated the release of 11 kidnapped Iranians, expressing gratitude to Turkey for its help and support for the rebel army Today`s Zaman reported
Gunmen kidnapped 11 Iranian pilgrims heading to the Syrian capital by road from Turkey last Wednesday. The group of 35 pilgrims were on a bus outside the central city of Hama when armed men ambushed it.
The gunmen took away 11 men, leaving behind the women, children and elderly men, after stealing money and mobile phones from them. The pilgrims had been heading to visit Shiite shrines in Syria, he said.
A statement released by the FSA said on Monday that the rebel army released 11 kidnapped Iranians for humanitarian reasons after Turkey's mediation. The rebel army said the kidnapped Iranians are allegedly sharpshooters firing on protesters and linked to Iranian Revolutionary Guards.
The Free Army said they have nothing to do with Iranian people but they are against the Iranian regime who supported the regime in Damascus.
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, a close ally of Iran, is under mounting international pressure to end a military crackdown on a 11-month-old popular uprising, which has escalated into an armed insurgency in some regions.
Syrians opposed to Assad come mainly from the country's Sunni Muslim majority, while Assad and his ruling coterie belong to the minority Alawite sect, an offshoot of Shi'ite Islam. Iran is the Middle East's Shi'ite power.
Five Iranian technicians were also kidnapped in the Syrian city of Homs in December and Tehran demanded their immediate release.
Iran has condemned what it has called foreign interference in Syrian affairs and has praised reforms Assad has pledged to undertake, but tempered its rhetoric on Syria as the uprising has dragged on and bloodshed has worsened.
At first Tehran wholeheartedly supported Assad's stance against public opposition, but now it is encouraging reforms to take account of popular grievances.
The United Nations says more than 5,000 people have been killed in Assad's crackdown on protests. Syria says more than 2,000 security force members have been killed by militants.
The FSA also praised Turkey's position on Syria and thanked Turkey for its support to the rebel army and Syrian people.

Link

Australia imposes new sanctions on Syrian leaders
February 7, 2012

Australia imposed new travel bans and financial sanctions on Syrian leaders on Tuesday as it steps up actions to force an end to violence against Syria's civilian population.

Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd said more than 5,000 people had been killed in a year of violence in Syria and President Bashar al-Assad had shown complete disregard for the rights and welfare of the Syrian people.

“Assad should step down. This violence by the Assad regime should end,” Rudd told the Australian parliament.

Rudd said Australia would extend travel bans and financial sanctions to cover an extra 75 people and 27 entities in Syria, and would work with other countries on possible further sanctions. Australia previously had travel bans on 34 people and 13 entities.

Since late last week, Syrian forces have bombarded the city of Homs, killing about 250 people in a sustained assault on strongholds of the armed opposition, activists and the opposition say.

Western nations were scrambling for a new diplomatic strategy for Syria after Russia and China vetoed a U.N Security Council resolution which backed an Arab League call for Assad to stand down.

Rudd said Australia was profoundly disappointed by the failure of the Security Council resolution, saying it was failure of the international community to help the Syrian people.

“This failure was an abdication of responsibility. There was no good reason to explain why this resolution was not passed,” he said.

“China and Russia now must explain to the people of Syria and to the international community their alternative plans for ending violence in Syria.” (Reporting by James Grubel; Editing by Robert Birsel)


Link

Desperately seeking a Plan B for Syria
February 8, 2012

Opinion

The UN vetoes have emboldened the Assad regime.

DIPLOMATS and politicians are not noted for plain speaking, but few members of either profession can match Russia's Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, when it comes to dissembling. Defending his country's veto of a UN Security Council resolution condemning the Assad regime in Syria, Mr Lavrov said that if the council had adopted the resolution it would have been taking sides in a civil war. So what does he think Russia and China, which also vetoed the resolution, have done? Their refusal to support action by the Security Council effectively endorses President Bashir al-Assad's brutal 11-month campaign against opponents of his regime, which the UN estimates has caused the deaths of more than 5400 people. The vetoes also make Russia and China complicit in the slaughter taking place in the city of Homs, where the regime is using rockets and heavy artillery to batter lightly armed resistance fighters and civilian protesters into submission. There has been no independent confirmation of casualty figures, but opposition groups say that up to 250 people have been killed since last weekend.

China's rulers, fearful of setting a precedent for action against their own repressive system, routinely oppose international intervention of any kind against tyrannical regimes. Russia's attitude is harder to fathom, though resentment of Western participation in Libya's civil war under the aegis of a Security Council resolution seems to be at least part of its motivation. By retaining Dr Assad as a client - Moscow provides most of the weaponry for his armed forces - the former superpower also remains a player in Middle Eastern politics. Russia has so firmly locked itself into support for Syria, however, that it is increasingly difficult to determine which is the client and which is the patron. Abandoning Dr Assad now would be a humiliating backdown, so the Russian government has left itself with little option but to try to shield him from international criticism while he proceeds to murder his country's citizens. It has also allied itself by default with Dr Assad's chief supporter in the region, Iran, which does not want to see Syria's Sunni majority claim power in Damascus.

The bitter irony is that there never was any prospect of a Libyan-style direct intervention in Syria's civil war anyway. The US, Britain, France and Germany have all declared that Dr Assad must go, but have ruled out repetition of the NATO bombing raids that helped topple Muammar Gaddafi. And the vetoed Security Council resolution, which was drafted by Arab nations, did not demand regime change and avoided calling for external intervention. It was the last, slim chance for a negotiated end to the violence.

Thus far, Western countries and the Arab League have imposed only weak sanctions on the Assad regime, which has treated them and the league's monitors with contempt. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has called for ''friends of democratic Syria'' to ''redouble our efforts outside of the United Nations'', but in the absence of military intervention it is not clear what those efforts might be. The Arabs and the West need a Plan B, such as trying to pressure Syria's trading partners to cease doing business with the regime. But even if this were to happen, Dr Assad's troops could take many more lives before an economic blockade took hold, and it would harm supporters and opponents of the regime alike. Nor, while Russia remains his ally, is there any likelihood of shutting down Dr Assad's supply of arms. The ''democratic friends'' could covertly arm the rebels, but that might make it increasingly hard to resist taking direct military action, too.

After the UN vetoes, the only certainty is that Syria's bloody civil war will continue. The West and the Arab League must strive to find the Plan B that so far has eluded them.

Link

Syrians up to the task
Wadah Khanfar
February 8, 2012

Opinion

The people have overcome the spectre of sectarianism in their fight against the Assad regime.

WHILE Russia and China were using their veto to abort a UN Security Council resolution against the Syrian regime this week, reports of a massacre in Homs came thick and fast. In an unprecedented escalation, the Syrian regime sought to exploit international hesitancy in order to have a bloody showdown with its opposition.

This regional and international hesitancy stems from two main factors. The first relates to the regional balance of power and what would happen if the regime collapsed. The second is linked to the alternatives that would replace the Baath regime.

On a regional level, Syria represents the cornerstone of a strategic axis that extends from Tehran through Baghdad to Damascus and ends in Beirut. A change of regime in Syria would result in a fundamental change in this political configuration and these alliances. Iran would lose an important ally, which would affect its influence in Lebanon and Iraq. Therefore, Iran has a strong interest in defending the Syrian regime until the bitter end.

As for the possible alternatives to the regime, this is another problem confronting the main players in the region. Despite the theoretical state of ''war'' between Israel and Syria, the Assad regime has maintained quiet borders with Israel since 1967. Israel would face a new situation with unpredictable consequences if the Baath regime collapsed, similar to the new relationship it faces with Egypt.

Analysts and politicians share several concerns about change in Syria: primarily, the security of the religious minorities should the Sunnis become the majority in the new regime. Others have raised the issue of Syria's territorial integrity if a civil war erupts. Still, others highlight the organisational weakness of the Syrian opposition and question whether the opposition Syrian National Council is capable of representing the people.

All these fears seem legitimate on the surface, except that they ignore an important truth, which is that the Syrian public is astute and those involved in the revolution are well aware of the dangers that surround it. A close examination of the popular action in recent months shows that those involved have succeeded in largely neutralising the spectre of sectarianism and the militarisation of their revolution.

The Syrian popular consciousness has been able to protect the revolution from the virus of sectarianism and ethnicity by preserving its national character. From day one, the ranks of the opposition included Alawites, Christians, Druze and Sunni Arabs and Kurds. They all stood as one front, demanding freedom and dignity. Despite severe repression, the revolution managed to preserve its predominantly peaceful nature except in the context of defending civilians; this is a role now mainly carried out by the Free Syrian Army, which comprises individuals and experienced officers who defected from the regime's army. They resolutely preserve the national discourse, and have not resorted to sectarian rhetoric. Those on the Syrian street know that the language of sectarianism will only serve the interests of the regime and it will divert the revolution from the path of democracy.

As for the supposed weakness and organisational ability of the opposition, there is in fact a huge capacity to organise and instil discipline. The people's co-ordinating committees communicate between themselves in all parts of Syria, assigning duties and dealing with logistics in a manner now much better than in the early days of the revolution.

At the same time, the Syrian National Council has begun to organise its ranks abroad, agreeing on a political discourse that is more coherent and co-ordinated. True, the opposition is less well organised than its counterparts in Tunisia, Egypt and Yemen, because of the extreme brutality of the Syrian regime, but an acceptable measure of maturity and commitment has been achieved. The public, with its civil and political forces, is able to guide the transition to democracy with no less proficiency than the other peoples in the region who have already got rid of their regimes.

The Syrian people have resolved to overthrow the regime. It is now for the international community, especially Russia and China, to make their choices, because the Syrian people have a voice, and it is being heard, with photos of their daily suffering being widely circulated - and memories that never die.

Link

Homes In Homs Turned Into Makeshift Hospitals

News > World News
1:10pm 7th February 2012.
Last night our safe house in Homs turned into a makeshift field hospital for injured fighters and today funerals are taking place - as residents fear a full-on regime assault.
The first indicator last night came when injured soldiers started running into the house where we were staying, looking for medics.
The first guy had been shot in the leg and had a large gash across his eye and so they started treating him.
Within 20 minutes trucks started to pull up and fighters began to carry in wounded fighters - the first one had been shot in the back and leg.
Soft cushions, as typical in Arab houses, were moved into the centre of the room and used as padding to put the wounded fighters on for treatment.
Then another man was brought in. He had been shot in the chest and head. They used drips, tried painkillers, and started to work feverishly on him.
A third guy came through the door but collapsed right there and died - he had been shot in the heart.
Incredibly, he was left there and they simply carried other injured fighters over him.
One of those had also been shot in the chest but he was still conscious and in great pain.
There were two medics treating him as best they could but it was all very chaotic.
The family members of the young fighter who had died in the doorway in the middle of the night were trying desperately to get to him at the house.
His body was taken away and, with a small ceremony, buried in a cemetery.
This morning, quite early, the bombing started again. It is quite windy today and the sound of explosions travels.
We have moved from the house and the people of Homs are absolutely scared that the security forces are coming after them.
I know one of the Free Syrian Army commanders. He is very young and very down about the situation as they cannot see any way out of this for them.
There is another martyr, as they call it, being buried now.
Hundreds of men are coming from around the area, gathering outside the local mosque for what is a fairly big service.
Already, there are about 1,000 people gathered. Like other big funerals it is becoming a large political rally.
The army is not far from here but the funeral bolsters the fighters and their determination to oppose the regime.


Link

Quite a sharp observation this.

Homs Attack: Is This Syria's Benghazi Moment?

News > World News
1:10pm 7th February 2012.
Much analysis has been written comparing the Syrian town of Homs to Benghazi in Libya.
"Is this Syria's Benghazi moment?" is the question, referring to how, just hours before a probable massacre, Nato flew to the rescue of the besieged town and turned the tide of the Libyan uprising.
The answer to the question may be "No - it's more like Syria's Sarajevo".
The parallels are not exact. In Sarajevo, in 1992, there was a three-sided civil war with one side, the Bosnian Serbs, armed and supported by a neighbouring state - Serbia.
However, what is similar is that for all the clarion calls of 'something must be done', very little was done for several years.
Sarajevo suffered three years of bombardment and thousands of civilian deaths before the international community could agree it had to intervene.
Most foreign countries were loathed to get involved not only because of big power politics, but also because they feared being dragged into a Balkan morass.
In 1995, a short and very sharp Nato combat mission brought the war to an end.
A decade later, there were still tens of thousands of foreign troops involved in keeping a fragile peace and even now 1,600 EU soldiers remain in the country.
In Homs, there is the possibility that after the current bombardment the Syrian Army will enter the parts of town is does not currently control.
If opposed, this would lead to continuing loss of civilian life in the fighting. If unopposed, there is the strong possibility they will go after men of 'fighting age'.
This is often regarded as people between their mid-teens and mid-50s.
That fear, and the current wave of shelling, is what drives the international condemnation, and in some quarters calls for military intervention, but without explicit UN cover that looks impossible in the short to medium term.
Even with a UN resolution allowing for military action, few countries would want to risk being pulled into a Syrian civil war.
The talk of an Arab force entering Syria appears to be so much hot air, and even the rumblings of a Turkish safe corridor in the north have died down.
In Bosnia, Serbia, Croatia, Saudi Arabia, Russia, and the US all involved themselves covertly, but the war dragged on for three terrible years before Nato began bombing and shelling the Bosnian Serb forces.
This may be the pattern for Syria. With few positive diplomatic moves available the battle lines will harden.
The Qataris, the Saudis, possibly the Turks, and possibly some western powers will now help the Free Syrian Army (FSA).
Unless you believe the opposition claims that the attacks on state workers and the police are actually the work of the Government, the FSA can be expected to continue to target symbols of the Syrian state.
All the pro-opposition countries will forge stronger links with the Syrian National Council whilst calling on all parties to end hostilities.
On the other side, Russia will continue to arm the Syrian military, as will the Iranians who will also assist with logistics, intelligence, and planning.
The Iraqi government can be expected to turn a blind eye to any Iranian assistance coming through its territory, and in Lebanon Hezbollah will give its full support to Damascus.
The fighting will play out, there will be a large loss of life on both sides, 'something must be done' will be heard ever more loudly, but what is being done, will mostly be done in the shadows.
Syria's agony will continue for the foreseeable future.

Link

The trouble with Fisk is that he's become completely obsessed with America and the Jews, which doesn't really have a single fucking thing to do with Syria at the moment.

Part of this editorial:

SONS OF MALCOLM

"UN Resolution
The draft UN resolution that was vetoed on 4 February, would have endorsed imperialism’s ‘regime change’ strategy – that is the drive to overthrow Assad and impose an imperialist backed government in Syria. The vetoed motion said that the Security Council ‘fully supports’ the Arab League request that Assad transfer power to a deputy and a government of national unity within two months – a position formulated and promoted by the Saudi dictatorship, the US’s key ally among the Arab states.
Russia had successfully argued for the removal of clauses in the draft that threatened military action against Syria. However, before supporting this new motion Russia sought further amendments which would impose the requirement for simultaneous withdrawal from the towns on both the Syrian government forces – as set out in the resolution – and on the armed opposition groups operating inside Syria – not mentioned in the resolution. The US, wanting no such restrictions on the armed opposition to the Syrian government, declared these proposed amendments unacceptable, ended further negotiations on the resolution and pushed it to a vote.
Of course, the veto in the UN will not deter the imperialists. The US and its allies had been stepping up their campaign in support of the opposition and against Assad despite the veto of an earlier UN resolution in October 2011. Their response to this new setback at the UN is simply to intensify the offensive.
U.S. Secretary of State Clinton has called for establishing a ‘friends of democratic Syria’ group to coordinate imperialist aid to the Syrian opposition. France has already signed up to this group, which is likely to be similar to the ‘Contact Group on Libya’ that coordinated NATO operations with the Libyan opposition. The US imperialists rapidly followed this with the withdrawal of their ambassador from Syria.
With US encouragement, the Arab League is ignoring the veto and claiming the 13-2 vote means there is ‘clear international support for the resolutions of the Arab League’. Qatar is calling for Arab states to assemble a military intervention force."

Originally Posted by OhOh

Part of this editorial:

SONS OF MALCOLM

"UN Resolution
The draft UN resolution that was vetoed on 4 February, would have endorsed imperialism’s ‘regime change’ strategy – that is the drive to overthrow Assad and impose an imperialist backed government in Syria. The vetoed motion said that the Security Council ‘fully supports’ the Arab League request that Assad transfer power to a deputy and a government of national unity within two months – a position formulated and promoted by the Saudi dictatorship, the US’s key ally among the Arab states.
Russia had successfully argued for the removal of clauses in the draft that threatened military action against Syria. However, before supporting this new motion Russia sought further amendments which would impose the requirement for simultaneous withdrawal from the towns on both the Syrian government forces – as set out in the resolution – and on the armed opposition groups operating inside Syria – not mentioned in the resolution. The US, wanting no such restrictions on the armed opposition to the Syrian government, declared these proposed amendments unacceptable, ended further negotiations on the resolution and pushed it to a vote.
Of course, the veto in the UN will not deter the imperialists. The US and its allies had been stepping up their campaign in support of the opposition and against Assad despite the veto of an earlier UN resolution in October 2011. Their response to this new setback at the UN is simply to intensify the offensive.
U.S. Secretary of State Clinton has called for establishing a ‘friends of democratic Syria’ group to coordinate imperialist aid to the Syrian opposition. France has already signed up to this group, which is likely to be similar to the ‘Contact Group on Libya’ that coordinated NATO operations with the Libyan opposition. The US imperialists rapidly followed this with the withdrawal of their ambassador from Syria.
With US encouragement, the Arab League is ignoring the veto and claiming the 13-2 vote means there is ‘clear international support for the resolutions of the Arab League’. Qatar is calling for Arab states to assemble a military intervention force."

Errrrr.... quite.

Inspired by the principles of Malcolm X / Malik El-Hajj Shabazz. A 'Third Worldist' perspective focusing on the increasing pace of south-south co-operation which is challenging and defeating US hegemony, and the struggles of those oppressed by neo-colonialism and white supremacy (racism) who fight for their social, political and cultural freedom 'by any means necessary'

Do you read Dave Spart?

An individual who observes Marxist theory to the exclusion of all else. Often comndemns most things in society and the world with meaningless far left-wing dogma, and often end up in logical cycles and jumping to conclusions in the process. Such people claim to be progressive, but are as backward thinking, unimaginative, blinkered, hare brained and colourless as the leaders of the former Soviet Union and Communist Eastern Europe. The word comes from the Private Eye "Archetypal left-winger" Dave Spart.

Russia U.N. veto on Syria aimed at crushing West's crusade

Louis Charbonneau Reuters 1:07 a.m. EST, February 8, 2012


UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Russia's veto of a Security Council resolution on Syria goes far beyond mere protection for a close ally and arms buyer - it showed Moscow's determination to crush what it sees as a Western crusade to use the United Nations to topple unfriendly regimes.

The same holds true for China, which followed Russia's lead and joined Moscow in its second double veto to strike down a European-Arab draft resolution that would have endorsed an Arab League plan for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to transfer power to his deputy to prepare free elections.



Russia's move, analysts and diplomats say, was a diplomatic counteroffensive responding to an unusually active period for the Security Council. Last year the 15-nation panel twice adopted resolutions authorizing "all necessary measures" - diplomatic code for military force - in Libya and Ivory Coast.
Libya and Ivory Coast were also the first time the council invoked the Western-backed notion of the "responsibility to protect" civilians threatened by their own governments.

In both cases U.N.-authorized military intervention led to the ouster of the countries' leaders. Libya's Muammar Gaddafi was killed at the hands of rebels who overthrew him during a six-month civil war and Ivory Coast's Laurent Gbagbo is now in a holding cell at the International Criminal Court in The Hague.

Russia and China did not stand in the way of U.N. action in Ivory Coast or Libya, whose civil war was initially the bloodiest of last year's Arab Spring uprisings.

But while Western governments and human rights groups welcomed enforcement of the concept of the "responsibility to protect" civilians, Moscow and Beijing did not hide their disdain for an idea they equate with violating states' sovereignty, which the United Nations was founded to protect.

In the case of Libya, Moscow was infuriated by the decision of France and others to supply weapons to rebels in violation of a U.N. arms embargo, while NATO appeared to be providing crucial air support for rebel offensives against Gaddafi's forces.

Russia accused the United States and its European allies of tricking fellow Security Council members and using a mandate to protect civilians as a cover for providing support to Libyan rebels and ousting Gaddafi. It was, in short, "regime change."

Russia, which abstained from the March 17, 2011, vote authorizing the use of force in Libya and allowed it to pass, vowed not to let that happen again in Syria, a key weapons-export destination and host to Moscow's only warm-water naval port outside the former Soviet Union.

"I see the Russian veto this week as the latest manifestation of their rejection of the pro-active, norm-enforcing Security Council that has emerged in the past decade," said George Lopez, a professor at Notre Dame University.

"The Libyan case was the final straw for the Russians, hence their October veto of the first Syrian resolution," he said. The second veto on Saturday was more of the same.

RETURN TO COLD WAR DEADLOCK?

The Russian veto goes beyond alliances, revenues from arms sales and Syria's considerable strategic importance for Moscow. It goes to the heart of a deep split between Russia and China, on the one hand, and the West on the other, on whether the United Nations should intervene in internal domestic conflicts.

Russia's and China's support for non-interference should come as no surprise, analysts say. Some Western governments and many human rights groups accuse both Moscow and Beijing of suppressing dissidents at home.

"The Syria vetoes are a dramatic evidence of a longstanding difference between Russia and China and many other countries, but particularly the West," said David Bosco of American University in Washington.

"There are all sorts of political interests involved but there is also a basic difference about whether the international community should be involved in internal conflicts against the will of the government," he said.

Lopez said that Russia had a willing helper in China, which has worked hard to keep the Security Council off the backs of countries that it considers strategic allies, like Myanmar, North Korea and Sudan.

He said China's veto was not a show of support for Assad but "an act of solidarity so that the Russians will support them on North Korean issues at the council."

"And remember - the Chinese have never vetoed on their own, so Russia was - is - really in the lead here," he said.

Frustrated by Russia's determination to block council action on Syria, France and the United States have talked about going outside the United Nations and creating a coalition of countries that would impose tough sanctions on Assad.

Western diplomats on the Security Council said Russia's veto was partly a sign of the coming "re-Putinization" of Russian foreign policy, a sneak preview of the approach Prime Minister Vladimir Putin is expected to take with the West if he returns to the presidency after next month's election, as is widely expected.

With the vote looming, analysts say, it was no surprise Putin took a tough, anti-Western stand on Syria.

So is the Security Council returning to the days of the Cold War when U.S.-Soviet rivalry left the council virtually unable to act? Council diplomats say there is no sign of that.

After the Syria resolution was vetoed on Saturday, French U.N. Ambassador Gerard Araud told reporters that he did not believe the council was at a general impasse, though it was clearly deadlocked on the issue of Syria.

Araud said there was good cooperation with Russia on many topics, while there remain issues the council has rarely been able to agree on, such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Nor is this the first time Russia has proven to be difficult for the United States and its allies on the Security Council. In the 1990s, Moscow strongly supported Serbia in the Balkan Wars and acted as Belgrade's protector on the council.

After an ineffectual U.N. presence failed to stop genocide in the 1992-1995 Bosnian War, the United States and its European allies infuriated Russia by bypassing the deadlocked Security Council and turning to NATO to halt the Serbian onslaught in Kosovo with a bombing campaign against Serbia in 1999.

Russia has also worked hard to dilute U.N. punitive measures against Iran over its nuclear program during Security Council negotiations on four sanctions resolutions between 2006 and 2010, though it ultimately voted for all of them. But recently Moscow has said there will be no new U.N. sanctions on Iran.

Link

They may have a point here, especially after that Russian shipload of weapons was spotted a week or so ago.

‘Not complicit’ - Tehran ‘denies’ Damascus role
TEHRAN, Feb 7, (AFP): Iran said on Tuesday foreign interference would destabilise Syria, rejecting accusations that Tehran was complicit in a “massacre” of civilians by supplying weapons to its main ally’s forces.
“We are absolutely not interfering in the internal affairs of Syria, and we consider that the interference of other countries there to be a danger to the security and stability of Syria,” foreign ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast told reporters.
He was reacting to a statement Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood issued on Monday, which said: “We consider Russia, China and Iran as direct accomplices to the horrible massacre being carried out against our people.”
The three countries were supplying weapons and equipment to President Bashar al-Assad’s regime, spokesman Zouheir Salem said in the statement released in London.
According to rights groups, more than 6,000 people have been killed in the unrest that broke out when activists launched a popular uprising in Syria in mid-March.
Russia and China used their veto power last weekend to scupper a UN Security Resolution vote on a draft resolution condemning the Assad regime’s bloody crackdown on the uprising.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said sharp Western criticism of the vetoes was “bordering on hysteria” and reaffirmed that it was wrong to blame Assad’s forces alone for the violence.
Lavrov landed in Damascus on Tuesday for talks with Assad.
Iran was also to dispatch a deputy foreign minister, Hossein Amir Abdollahian, to the Syrian capital on Tuesday, for a visit which the official IRNA news agency said was aimed at discussing “bilateral relations and regional issues.”
Mehmanparast hailed Russia and China for having a “sense of responsibility” and countering what he said were moves by Western and Arab countries “to prepare the way for political and military intervention in Syria” to protect Israel.
He said the only solution was to help create “the right atmosphere for talks and reforms in Syria”.
Iran’s stance on Syria has earned criticism from neighbouring Turkey, with Deputy Prime Minister Bulent Arinc on Sunday calling into question the Islamic republic’s Muslim credentials.
“I am addressing the Islamic Republic of Iran: I do not know if you are worthy of being called Islamic,” Arinc said, questioning Tehran’s silence on the violent crackdown.
“Have you said a single thing about what is happening in Syria?” he asked.
Mehmanparast dismissed Arinc’s remarks, saying “some Turkish officials are mistaken in their calculations” on Syria.
“We advise them (to acquire) a more accurate understanding of the affairs there and create an atmosphere that would help resolve issues in Syria,” he said.
Turkey, once a close ally of neighbouring Syria and Iran, has been at the forefront of international criticism against the Damascus regime and has also become a haven for many Syrian opposition activists.
In Syria, heavy shelling, sporadic machinegun fire and rocket explosions were heard in the central city of Homs on Tuesday as regime forces and rebels continued their conflict.
Syria’s government vowed it would keep hunting “terrorist groups until security and order are re-established in all neighbourhoods of Homs.”

Link

Russia’s Potemkin democracy

By Anne Applebaum, Wednesday, February 8, 3:24 AM

I couldn’t decide whether to laugh or to cry when I heard that the Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, had found a solution to the Syrian crisis. Speaking in Damascus on Tuesday, Lavrov declared that everything was fine: President Bashar al-Assad was “completely committed to the task of stopping violence regardless of where it may come from.” Russia’s foreign ministry backed up this statement by calling for “the swiftest stabilization of the situation in Syria on the basis of the swiftest implementation of democratic reforms whose time has come.”

Actually, the time for “democratic reforms” has long passed in Syria, where Assad’s army shows no sign of “stopping violence regardless of where it may come from.” If anything, the brutality increased during the hours that Lavrov spent in Damascus. But even if Syria were an Arab Switzerland, fully prepared to hold a “constitutional referendum,” as Lavrov suggests, it would be hard to listen to the Russian foreign minister’s comments with a straight face. At the moment, it isn’t easy to say how, exactly, Russia selects its political leaders, but that process doesn’t involve the voting public, at least not very much. “Swift implementation of democratic reforms” is definitely an idea whose time has come — in Moscow and St. Petersburg, as well as Damascus and Aleppo.

Nevertheless, it is notable, and remarkable, that even the Russians now feel obligated to use this kind of language. I have to presume that Lavrov doesn’t care one way or the other about democracy in Syria: He went there because Syria buys a lot of weapons from Russia, because Russia was spooked by the fall of Moammar Gaddafi and because unrest in Syria might be bad for other Russian interests in the region. Once upon a time, a Soviet envoy visiting the beleaguered head of a client state in a similar situation would have used words like “comradely solidarity” instead of “democracy,” and he would have brought along some very visible military advisers for good measure.

Nowadays, that sort of thing just isn’t acceptable. It is not good for one’s international prestige to be seen as the leader of a nasty dictatorship. Slowly, it is also becoming more difficult to move one’s money around the world or to educate one’s children in Swiss boarding schools.

More to the point, even authoritarian regimes worry about how their warm relationships with other authoritarians look to those at home. Lavrov represents a regime that, although not endangered at the moment, certainly fears popular discontent, anti-corruption rhetoric and, of course, political demonstrations of the sort that created the Orange Revolution in Ukraine or the Arab Spring across North Africa. And thus Russia feels the need to maintain a semblance of legitimacy.

During the last Russian presidential elections, President Dmitry Medvedev did not travel around the country and did not meet with supporters. The Russian media covered the story, with Medvedev receiving almost all of the television coverage while his opponents got little or none. Nevertheless, people were encouraged to vote, and all of the fluffy trappings of democracy were present, even though there was no doubt about who would win.

The same is true in Russian diplomacy. Lavrov, and his bosses, clearly don’t want Russians back home to think they support a regime that is firing on demonstrators — although they do — particularly in a week when demonstrators have thronged the streets of Moscow, carrying banners calling for “honest elections.” It makes them look, well, undemocratic. So the Russian foreign ministry has to pretend to be fighting for Syrian democracy, even as the Syrian army is simultaneously waging a full-scale war against its people.

I’m of two minds about this “pretend democracy promotion,” the natural offshoot of Russia’s pretend democracy. On the one hand, it cheapens the language. If “we support Syrian democracy” really means “we support Syrian dictatorship,” then we’re in an Orwellian world where nothing means anything anymore at all.

On the other hand, people are not stupid: Syrians and Russians both know the difference between “democracy,” “constitutions” and “referendums” on the one hand, and naked violence on the other. The more the Russians use those words, the more obvious it will be, to Syrians and to Russians, that in this context they are meaningless. Perhaps some of them will eventually decide they want the real thing instead.

Anne Applebaum is director of political studies at the London-based Legatum Institute and writes a monthly column for The Post. Her e-mail address is applebaumletters@washpost.com.

Link

Syria raises spectre of proxy conflict for U.S., Russia

By Andrew Quinn | Reuters – 7 hours ago



WASHINGTON (Reuters) - As the Obama administration weighs worst-case scenarios for Syria, one stands out: a civil war that develops into a proxy battle between Arabs and the West on one side, and Russia and Iran on the other.
U.S. officials stress they do not want to play a military role in Syria, where President Bashar al-Assad's crackdown on protests has killed more than 5,000 people and raised fears of a protracted power struggle in a country at the heart of the Arab world.
But after U.S. and Arab-led efforts to craft consensus in the U.N. Security Council on Syria's political transition were torpedoed by vetoes from Russia and China, some analysts say risks are growing that the international community will line up on opposite sides of a fratricidal war.
The volatile ingredients are already in place.
Resistance fighters known as the Free Syrian Army have pledged to liberate the country from Assad's rule. Activists call for armed support for rebels. And Syrian security forces are ratcheting up the violence, vowing to fulfil their president's threat to strike with an "iron fist" against the government's opponents.
""There is a risk of it could become a proxy conflict. It is already headed in that direction," said Andrew Tabler, a Syria expert at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
"I think you will see now different countries in the region betting on the Free Syrian Army. Already weapons have been coming in from Lebanon. You will now see more coming in from Jordan, from Turkey, from Iraq or from Russia. Everyone will start to operate in this environment."
U.S. officials say their emphasis is on building support for Syria's beleaguered political opposition and possibly providing humanitarian relief for refugees as the fighting intensifies.
For their part, Russia and Iran say they are urging Damascus to make reforms. But they reject what they describe as a Western-engineered attempt to overthrow the government of one of their closest allies.
Some in Washington worry the situation may eventually edge toward a Cold War-style proxy conflict.
"At the moment it is not something that is being discussed," one U.S. official said on condition of anonymity. "That is not to say that at some point down the line it won't be."
A COMPLEX PUZZLE
During the Cold War, Washington and Moscow fought proxy battles in Latin America, Africa, Afghanistan and elsewhere, arming allied governments or insurgents fighting against them.
U.S. President Barack Obama, facing re-election in November,
has steered away from deeper involvement in Syria, a complex and combustible political puzzle that is a potential threat to U.S. allies including Israel, Turkey and Jordan.
"It is very important for us to try to resolve this without recourse to outside military intervention. And I think that's possible," Obama told NBC this week, dismissing parallels with the international military effort that toppled Libya's Muammar Gaddafi last year.
But Damascus, facing its greatest crisis in four decades of the Assad family's dynastic rule, contends that it is already fighting an Islamic insurgency funded and directed by enemies in U.S.-allied Gulf Arab states.
Turkey, which shares a long border with Syria, has expressed outrage at the violence and floated the idea of "humanitarian corridors" to stem the bloodshed. Western powers including the United States and the European Union have imposed economic sanctions to pressure Assad and isolate his government. Obama has called on Assad to step down.
Russia, which sells Syria arms and maintains a military base on its Mediterranean coast, has shown no sign of backing away from its Syrian alliance.
Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov visited Damascus on Tuesday and emerged saying that Assad was committed to halting the violence and would soon roll out new political reforms, promises the Syrian leader has reneged on in the past.
Iran has also stood by Syria, which has long helped it support the militant anti-Israel Hezbollah faction in neighbouring Lebanon, and accused Washington of trying to destabilize the region.
"America's plans for Syria are evident and unfortunately some foreign and regional countries take part in America's plans," Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said late last month.
RISKS AHEAD
Washington's plan for Syria thus far appears limited. After Russia's and China's double veto in the U.N. Security Council, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Sunday suggested the United States would work with allies to tighten sanctions and support democratic change in Syria even without Security Council backing.
But many analysts say expanding violence on the ground may eventually force Washington and its allies to consider additional steps - which would be fraught with political risk even if no foreign forces were directly involved.
"I think we should be helping them, and I think we should look at ways we can help them," Republican Senator John McCain said on Tuesday, suggesting that any new working group on Syria should consider all options including military assistance.
"I think everything should be on the table as to what would be the most effective in bringing this massacre to a halt."
State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said the United States did not believe arming the opposition was a solution.
"We don't think (sending) more arms into Syria is the answer," Nuland said. "The answer is to get to a national democratic dialogue for the violence to stop for the regime's tanks to come out of the cities, and then for monitors to be able to go back in."
Shadi Hamid, a Middle East expert at the Brookings Doha Center, said this might be wishful thinking.
"I just don't see the Syrian regime giving up here. I think they are going to fight this to the very last drop of blood, and that doesn't make me optimistic about a political solution," said Hamid, who argues that the international community should be more proactive about possible military intervention.
Not all experts are persuaded that a proxy conflict is the cards, pointing to the political risks for Obama and a U.S. public weary of long conflicts in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
And U.S. fears over a Syrian quagmire may find an echo in Moscow, where the immediate push to thwart U.S. objectives at the United Nations may not translate into lasting support for Assad's government, according to Anthony Cordesman, a senior analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
"There are Russian interests at stake, but not vital Russian interests," Cordesman said.
"Russia should certainly be trying to find a way to handle this issue which shows that Russia has the influence to be decisive. But they also want to see broad stability."
(Reporting By Andrew Quinn; additional reporting by Susan Cornwell)


Link

Israel is prepared to strike over Syria

By Phoebe Greenwood in Tel Aviv

Wednesday February 08 2012

Israel's defence establishment has indicated it is prepared to take action should Syria's vast store of unconventional weapons fall into the hands of Hezbollah militants in Lebanon.
Tel Aviv said Syria's weaponry poses as great a threat to Israeli security as Iranian nuclear development.
As the violent government crackdown on Syrian civilian protesters enters its 11th month, Israeli intelligence now regards the fall of Bashar al-Assad and his regime as inevitable.
Syria's massive stockpile of weapons includes surface-to-air missiles, high-trajectory long-range rockets and missiles, and biological and chemical weapons, which are currently under the watchful guard of government troops.
Incoming Air Force Chief Major General Emir Eshel said: "The question is when, not if [Assad will fall]. And the big question is what will happen the following day.
"What has been passed on to Hezbollah so far? What will be passed on in the future? What will be divided between the two factions in Syria?"
War
An Israeli defence official was quoted last week in Israeli daily 'Israel Hayom', a paper closely affiliated with prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, warning that the transfer of chemical weaponry to Lebanon would be tantamount to a declaration of war by the Lebanese government, adding that Israel would act to prevent such a move.
Air Force Command Major General Ido Nechushtan has stated baldly that the volatile situation in Syria may lead to a conflict on Israel's northern border.
According to Arab media reports, Syria has already moved Scud missiles to Hezbollah camps in Lebanon and erected surface-to-air missiles in the Lebanese mountains.
Meanwhile, Russia's foreign minister Sergei Lavrov claimed to have won a promise of a "cessation" of violence yesterday after meeting Mr Assad in Syria.
But Mr Lavrov's words were immediately undermined by the Syrian interior ministry, which pledged to press on with the offensive against "armed terrorist gangs" in the city of Homs.
"Operations to hunt down terrorist groups will continue until security and order are re-established in all neighbourhoods of Homs and its environs and until we overcome all armed persons terrorising citizens," said a statement. (© Daily Telegraph, London)


Link