The problem with the Geneva Communique from the first Geneva round on Syria is that the government of Syria never subscribed to it. It was jointly chaired by the League of Arab States for Syria, whatever that may mean. Another problem is that it is, as so many diplomatic documents are, highly ambiguous. It plainly advocates a power sharing executive formed by some of the current government plus the opposition to oversee a transition to democracy. But it does not state which elements of the current government, and it does not mention which elements of the opposition, nor does it make plain if President Assad himself is eligible to be part of, or to head, the power-sharing executive, and whether he is eligible to be a candidate in future democratic elections.
Doubtless the British, for example, would argue that the term transition implies that he will go. The Russians will argue there is no such implication and the text does not exclude anybody from the process. Doubtless also diplomats on all sides were fully aware of these differing interpretations and the ambiguity is quite deliberate to enable an agreed text. I would say that the text tends much more to the “western” side, and that this reflects the apparently weak military position of the Assad regime at that time and the then extant threat of western military intervention. There has been a radical shift in those factors against the western side in the interim. Expect Russian interpretations now to get more hardline.
Given the extreme ambiguity of the text, Iran has, as it frequently does, shot itself in the foot diplomatically by refusing to accept the communique as the basis of talks and thus getting excluded from Geneva. Iran should have accepted the communique, and then at Geneva issued its own interpretation of it.
But that is a minor point. The farcical thing about the Geneva conference is that it is attempting to promote into power-sharing in Syria “opposition” members who have no democratic credentials and represent a scarcely significant portion of those actually fighting the Assad regime in Syria. What the West are trying to achieve is what the CIA and Mossad have now achieved in Egypt; replacing the head of the Mubarak regime while keeping all its power structures in place. The West don’t really want democracy in Syria, they just want a less pro-Russian leader of the power structures.
The inability of the British left to understand the Middle East is pathetic. I recall arguing with commenters on this blog who supported the overthrow of the elected President of Egypt Morsi on the grounds that his overthrow was supporting secularism, judicial independence (missing the entirely obvious fact the Egyptian judiciary are almost all puppets of the military) and would lead to a left wing revolutionary outcome. Similarly the demonstrations against Erdogan in Istanbul, orchestrated by very similar pro-military forces to those now in charge in Egypt, were also hailed by commenters here. The word “secularist” seems to obviate all sins when it comes to the Middle East.
Qatar will be present at Geneva, and Qatar has just launched a pre-emptive media offensive by launching a dossier on torture and murder of detainees by the Assad regime, which is being given first headline treatment by the BBC all morning
There would be a good dossier to be issued on torture in detention in Qatar, and the lives of slave workers there, but that is another question.
I do not doubt at all that atrocities have been committed and are being committed by the Assad regime. It is a very unpleasant regime indeed. The fact that atrocities are also being committed by various rebel groups does not make Syrian government atrocities any better.
But whether 11,000 people really were murdered in a single detainee camp I am unsure. What I do know is that the BBC presentation of today’s report has been a disgrace. The report was commissioned by the government of Qatar who commissioned Carter Ruck to do it. Both those organisations are infamous suppressors of free speech. What is reprehensible is that the BBC are presenting the report as though it were produced by neutral experts, whereas the opposite is the case. It is produced not by anti torture campaigners or by human rights activists, but by lawyers who are doing it purely and simply because they are being paid to do it.
The BBC are showing enormous deference to Sir Desmond De Silva, who is introduced as a former UN war crimes prosecutor. He is indeed that, but it is not the capacity in which he is now acting. He is acting as a barrister in private practice. Before he was a UN prosecutor, he was for decades a criminal defence lawyer and has defended many murderers. He has since acted to suppress the truth being published about many celebrities, including John Terry.
If the Assad regime and not the government of Qatar had instructed him and paid him, he would now be on our screens arguing the opposite case to that he is putting. That is his job. He probably regards that as not reprehensible. What is reprehensible is that the BBC do not make it plain, but introduce him as a UN war crimes prosecutor as though he were acting in that capacity or out of concern for human rights. I can find no evidence of his having an especial love for human rights in the abstract, when he is not being paid for it. He produced an official UK government report into the murder of Pat Finucane, a murder organised by British authorities, which Pat Finucane’s widow described as a “sham”. He was also put in charge of quietly sweeping the Israeli murders on the Gaza flotilla under the carpet at the UN.
The question any decent journalist should be asking him is “Sir Desmond De Silva, how much did the government of Qatar pay you for your part in preparing this report? How much did it pay the other experts? Does your fee from the Government of Qatar include this TV interview, or are you charging separately for your time in giving this interview? In short how much are you being paid to say this?”
That is what any decent journalist would ask. Which is why you will never hear those questions on the BBC.
“This will get them spitting feathers.
‘Edward Snowden has been nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize”
__________________________
The poster of the above obviously has no idea of how the Nobel award process works. Every year there are dozens, if not hundreds, of nominations for the Nobel peace prize. Being nominated is of course necessary in order to win it, but otherwise it doesn’t mean squit.
Sorry to disappoint, bit happy to inform and correct misleading “info”!
Clark
“Actually, Craig Murray’s blog couldn’t operate freely in the UK, and is thus now hosted in the Netherlands:3
__________________
Can you supply a little more info on why it “couldn’t operate freely” in the UK?
Independently of the above, has any reader or poster received a visit from the police, whether uniformed or secret, for having read or posted? Been warned off? Been inconvenienced in any way? Sacked, perhaps? Sent to prison or a labour camp? Or have the UK authorities sought to make Craig’s blog unavailable in any way?
No, I thought not. So now ask yourself whether you can say the same about any of the countries I mentioned (Russia, China, Iran, Cuba, etc etc)
__________________________
“Life is getting better, life is getting merrier!” (J. Stalin, ca. 1932)
Mr Scourgie
“I must have missed that one.”
____________________
By no means the only thing you’ve missed. And what you don’t miss, you lack. Sorry to have to say so.
Mr Scourgie (n° 2)
“Susan Sarandon is a progressive left-liberal anti-war activist (as well as an actress). Strange that you support her. ”
___________________
But even stranger that Mary should have had a go at her, wouldn’t you say?
“Birmingham University student protest leads to 14 arrests”
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/jan/30/birmingham-university-student-protest-arrests
“Red-shirts ‘ready to resist’ Thai army coup, set up capital in Chiang Mai”
http://www.scmp.com/news/asia/article/1416916/red-shirts-ready-resist-thai-army-coup-set-capital-chiang-mai
“Warning bells ring over British current account deficit”
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/business/2014-01/30/c_133086013.htm
“China’s manufacturing PMI falls to 6-month low”
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2014-01/30/c_133085572.htm
I really don’t know which of them I love more : obsessive Mary, sat in front of her laptop all day or Mr Scourgie with his foolish, pseudo-rational, pseudo-erudite quibblings (cf post at 14h12).
Node:- Vitchek has written widely about what he sees as an anti-China agenda in the west. Whether he’s right or wrong it’s clearly what the Chinese want to hear so of course they’d be more than pleased to let him have free reign on the telly for an hour or two. Sadly the attitude to anyone with contrary opinions to the Chinese state isn’t quite as benign:-
http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/china/report-2012
As an attempt to completely refute what I (and many others) have said you’ll have to do better than one person with an agenda agreeable to the ruling elite.
A correction. My ‘go’ at Susan Sarandon was purely a sentence to say that she attended a store opening for the Israeli Lev Leviev who is an Israeli blood diamond importer and retailer. Got it? Understand?
Two Palestinian villages ask Susan Sarandon to repudiate Leviev
Mohammed Khatib and Sharif Omar
6 January 2008 http://electronicintifada.net/content/two-palestinian-villages-ask-susan-sarandon-repudiate-leviev/7281
In view of her left leaning activism, why is so blind to the Palestinians’ situation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Sarandon#Activism
At least she is not so greedy for commercial sponsorships like Johansson.
Endorsements
Johansson has appeared in advertising campaigns for Calvin Klein, L’Oréal and Louis Vuitton,[124] and has been the face of Spanish brand Mango since 2009.[125] After appearing at the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s Costume Institute Gala with Domenico Dolce and Stefano Gabbana, Johansson was announced as the face of the new Dolce & Gabbana make-up collection in early 2009.[124] She made a personal appearance at the London store, Selfridges, on July 31, 2009, to help launch and promote the line.[126] Johansson was also the first Hollywood celebrity to become an ambassador for a Champagne House, after she became the spokesperson for Moët & Chandon and appeared in various advertisements and events for the brand.[127] In January 2014, the Sodastream home-carbonation system announced Johannson as its first brand ambassador.
Someone @ 8;pm 29th
Re “Gaging” Order
Yesterday ( Tuesday 28th Jan ) the government’s gagging law was passed by the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats – marking yet another nail in the coffin for freedom of speech in Britain.
And as if to celebrate the occasion, three parody accounts that were critical of coalition policies closed down on Twitter – at least one after complaints were made from government officials.
@UKJCP – a satirical account parodying the DWP, @IDS_MP – a parody account of Iain Duncan Smith and @Skip_Licker – another satirical account all closed yesterday.
“it is not satire”-( Gov.Com). So now we’ve not just got government departments deciding what forms of public criticism are acceptable, but also deciding for us what exactly is humorous and what isn’t.
“This country’s getting more and more like China every day.”
http://tompride.wordpress.com/2014/01/29/twitter-parody-accounts-critical-of-government-closed-down-on-same-day-gagging-law-passes/
Today I have painted the four walls of my sitting room, walked the dog, cleaned the car, did a bit of shopping, phoned a couple of friends, cooked supper, washed up and have just sat down.
The troll must stop this pathetic trolling.
“Today I have painted the four walls of my sitting room, walked the dog, cleaned the car, did a bit of shopping, phoned a couple of friends, cooked supper, washed up and have just sat down.”
_________________
Not to mention posting 14 times today so far.
You are either Wonderwoman or then there’s two of you (perish the thought).
John Pilger on the distortions of Hollywood. He refers to the turkey wherein Cumberbatch played Julian Assange.
He ends his piece with this about Vaz. So funny.
‘For those outside Britain, the name Keith Vaz is not associated with celebrity. And yet this Labour Party politician has had a long and distinguished career of self-promotion, while slipping serenely away from scandals and near-scandals, a parliamentary inquiry and a suspension, having acquired the soubriquet Keith Vaseline. In 2009, he was revealed to have claimed 75,500 pounds in expenses for an apartment in Westminster despite having a family home just 12 miles from parliament.
Last year, Vaz’s parliamentary home affairs committee summoned Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger to Parliament to discuss the leaks of Edward Snowden. Vaz’s opening question to Rusbridger was: “Do you love this country?”
Once again, Vaz was an instant celebrity, though, once again, not the one he longed to be. He was compared with the infamous Senator Joe McCarthy. Still, the sheer stamina of his endeavours proves that Keith Vaseline is no flash in the pan; and is the Oscar Celebrity of the Year! Congratulations Keith, and commiserations, Benedict; you were only just behind.’
http://johnpilger.com/articles/its-the-other-oscars-and-yet-again-the-winner-slips-away
There’s one other comment in moderation too!
Only the one of me btw!
“US readying sanctions against Ukraine, aides say”
http://www.france24.com/en/20140130-usa-sanctions-ukraine-yanukovich-protests/
“Imperial Conquest: America’s “Long War” against Humanity”
http://www.globalresearch.ca/imperial-conquest-americas-long-war-against-humanity/5364215
Kempe
You question Vitchek’s partiality but don’t question Amnesty International’s.
Amnesty International is reticent about its funding. It says that “it does not accept donations from governments or governmental organisations,” yet Wikipedia says “However, AI did receive grants from the UK Department for International Development, the European Commission, the United States State Department and other governments”. Amnesty International says it “accepts support from businesses that have been carefully vetted” but will not name them.
In the absence of clarification from A.I. it seems likely its funding is entirely from the West. Can we therefore trust its impartiality when comparing East and West?
My original comment was headed “Regarding freedom of expression …. the west vs the rest”
In that vein, would you care to justify why Iran’s Press TV is banned in the UK while the BBC is not banned in Iran?
30 January 2014
“Boris Johnson tells police to ‘get medieval’ on rioters”
http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2014/01/30/boris-johnson-tells-police-to-get-medieval-on-rioters
3 May 2012
“Metropolitan Police ‘stockpiling’ plastic bullets”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-17925477
Read more at http://www.maxkeiser.com/2014/01/boris-johnson-tells-police-to-get-medieval-on-rioters/comment-page-1/#qpi2zwcv5GYH4fHe.99
“In that vein, would you care to justify why Iran’s Press TV is banned in the UK while the BBC is not banned in Iran?”
Actually Press TV isn’t banned in the UK, they lost their license because they refused to comply with Ofcom rules. All satellite TV is banned in Iran.
Fred
Britain bans Iran’s Press TV from airwaves
Britain took a key communications arm of the Iranian state off the airwaves on Friday when Press TV, a satellite news channel, lost its broadcasting licence.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/9028435/Britain-bans-Irans-Press-TV-from-airwaves.html
Habbabkuk and Kempe:
Habbabkuk, I’ll post my link again; most of the answer to your question is there. But briefly, under UK libel law the publisher, as well as the author, can be threatened with legal action.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2007/sep/21/digitalmedia.politicsandthemedia
Kempe, this blog was re-hosted in the Netherlands following Usmanov’s threats, the article Usmanov objected was re-published immediately and has never been taken down, so Dutch hosting does protect this blog.
Usmanov could still sue Craig, but he never did because Craig’s allegations are true and Usmanov would lose.
Mary, 8:14 am:
The video is still there, and I just successfully downloaded it using youtube-dl. For some reason the player fails. I’ll try to find somewhere to host the vid; I can’t put it on my web-space because downloads of it will exceed my bandwidth allowance.
Fred is splitting hairs. Ofcom is the tool the British Government used to ban Press TV. The grounds were spurious. The Telegraph recognised this in its headline “Britain bans Iran’s Press TV from airwaves.”
Here’s the Guardian saying the same thing:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jan/24/suppressing-press-tv-ofcom-licence
And BTW, the Guardian piece re-inforces my point about Iran’s attitude to censorship as opposed to Britain’s. The author of the piece is “a proud Zionist” who has made several appearances on Press TV. In his own words:
So, while you’re answering my last question, Kempe, perhaps you’ll include some examples of pro-Iranian hardliners being given free rein to say anything they like on the BBC.
“Actually Press TV isn’t banned in the UK, they lost their license because they refused to comply with Ofcom rules. All satellite TV is banned in Iran.”
That’s a true gem, Fred. Well done.
Thanks for that Clark. Do you think the fact that it would not play was due to a technical blip or has there been interference, so to speak? 😉
@A Node
Did you actually read the article you posted a link to? Like the bit about Press TV refusing to transfer editorial control to the UK branch of the company which holds the license? Or that they still haven’t paid fines for breaking Ofcom rules?
No I am not splitting hairs, I’m telling it how it is.
Satellite TV is still banned in Iran.
I have a hard enough time telling it how it is to people who try to demonise Iran without people trying to make them saints. They have many good qualities particularly their lack of aggression where they beat Britain hands down but when it comes to censorship they still have a lot of ground to make up.
Can Italy now extradite Amanda Knox?
A fresh appeal hearing in Italy reinstates the guilty verdicts on Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito for the murder of British student Meredith Kercher.
Craig on the original trial
Meredith Kercher Case
by craig on Oct 6th 2011 in Uncategorized
To cut through the enormous wave of rubbish that swept the net for 48 hours about Amanda Knox, I wanted to publish the text of the statement she made to police trying to frame Patrick Lumumba. It is evidence of how appalling the media coverage is that I can’t track down through the gush this […]
The White Charger Stays In The Stable
by craig on Dec 7th 2009 in Life
As a campaigner for liberty, and a sucker for damsels in distress, I was looking to work up a piece in defence of Amanda Knox. Incarceration is a horrible thing. We lock up far, far too many people in the UK. Punishment is necessary in society, but there are innumerable other forms of punishment possible […]
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/?s=amanda+knox
BLiar again.
Interesting comments in the thread commencing
‘Blair backs Egypt’s military leaders’
Posted by The Editors on January 30, 2014, 1:02 pm
‘Therefore, my conclusion is, we should support those people in the region who want the open-minded society and the modern economy. That means we support the government here in Egypt.
‘This is what I say to my colleagues in the West: the fact is, the Muslim Brotherhood tried to take the country away from its basic values of hope and progress. The army have intervened, at the will of the people, but in order to take the country to the next stage of its development, which should be democratic, we should be supporting the new government in doing that.’
http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2014/01/30/blair-backs-egypts-military-leaders/
Thus flatly contradicting everything he said on Iraq, Libya, Syria etc…
~~~~
Apparently not so long ago he promoted Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood as ‘a force for good’. Doesn’t he know that he is a laughing stock nowadays and nobody gives a stuff about what he thinks and says.
http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/thread/1391086920.html
“A correction. My ‘go’ at Susan Sarandon was purely a sentence to say that she attended a store opening for the Israeli Lev Leviev who is an Israeli blood diamond importer and retailer. Got it? Understand?”
___________________
Does having a “go” at someone have to be in several sentences, or can one sentence do the trick?
Was your single sentence purely informatory or was it intended to convey disapproval, or even approval?
Re BLiar
“Apparently not so long ago he promoted Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood as ‘a force for good’. Doesn’t he know that he is a laughing stock nowadays and nobody gives a stuff about what he thinks and says.”
_______________
Well, I’d certainly second that. My view is that he’s a bit like a performing seal, just popping up out of the water and spouting jets of words at regular intervals in order to justify the large emoluments he rakes in from various sources including the ludicrous “Quartet”.
He’s a busted flush.
But attention : a packet of top EU posts will be delivered this year, after the EP elections. Among them, President of the European Council, to replace H van Rompuy….
Don’t forget – you read it here first!
Fred,
So you think that Press TV wanted to be banned in Britain?