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.
“Shocking Reality Of What Will Happen As Currencies Collapse”
http://kingworldnews.com/kingworldnews/KWN_DailyWeb/Entries/2014/1/30_Shocking_Reality_Of_What_Will_Happen_As_Currencies_Collapse.html
With you on this, habby.
I’m sure Blairio is the fallguy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ghost_Writer_%28film%29
But not sure why you’re agin him now.
What’s he done wrong?
@ doug scorgie,
As my uncles used to say, “When you go shark fishin’, you don’t break bread over the waters, you bring bloody bait.’
I always mention the holocaust to bring about a watershed and see who’s who. It’s 100% fireproof [no pun intended] and never fails.
Oh, and libel is my linesman.
Mary, 10:02 pm: I don’t know, but it’s probably just a fault. The video is still there and youtube-dl downloaded it, so the video presumably can be watched on some devices. I’ll try telling YouTube and see if they fix it.
Anyone got a YouTube account for uploading? E-mail me and I’ll put the vid somewhere you can snaffle it.
First the Dutch….Now Norway –
Norway pension fund bans Israeli occupation-profiteers after lies exposed
http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/norway-pension-fund-bans-israeli-occupation-profiteers-after-lies-exposed
“So you think that Press TV wanted to be banned in Britain?
I know they were offered the option of not having their license revoked and didn’t take it.
Do you think someone caught drink driving wants to have their license revoked?
I can’t find anywhere to report a non-working video at YouTube. Probably the easiest thing would be just to upload it again.
“Anyone got a YouTube account for uploading? E-mail me and I’ll put the vid somewhere you can snaffle it.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjFinAM_Tns&feature=youtu.be
Fred, brilliant. Thanks.
OK, Fred, my arguments with you never go anywhere. However, maybe this time ……
The BBC pays up to £900,000/hour for drama (http://www.bbc.co.uk/commissioning/tv/how-we-work/business-requirements/tariff-ranges.shtml). The Press TV fine was £100,000, a trivial amount in terms of the running costs of a TV company. Conclusion : It is not plausible that they couldn’t afford to pay it.
“On 3 April 2012, Munich-based media regulator BLM announced it was removing Press TV from the SES Astra satellite as they did not have a licence to broadcast in Europe. However, the channel’s legal team submitted documents to the court that proved Press TV could broadcast under German law. An administrative court in Germany accepted Press TV’s argument and the legal procedures began. Munich’s Administrative Court announced on Friday 15 June that the ban was illegal.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRESS_TV)
On that occasion they went to the courts to fight a politically motivated illegal ban. Conclusion: It doesn’t seem likely that they wanted to be banned
OFCOM’s given justification for removing the licence is that it was not convinced that Press TV’s editorial control was based in Britain. Press TV’s circumstances were no different from CNN International, Bloomberg and Al Jazeera, all of which ultimately answer, editorially, to bosses in Atlanta, New York and Doha. These TV companies have not had their licenses revoked. Conclusion : the given explanation is spurious
We know that the British government wanted to ban Press TV from a wikileak of a secret cable from Jaime (sic) Turner, “Deputy Head of Multi-lateral affairs at the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office”. (http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/01/20/britain-bans-press-tv/)
Conclusion : the British government had a motive
The boss of OFCOM at the time was Ed Richards, previously Senior Policy Advisor to Tony Blair and a Controller of Corporate Strategy at the BBC. Conclusion : the British government had the means
That’s my reasoning. My overall conclusion is that it is fair comment to say “Britain banned Press TV”
OK, Fred, my arguments with you never go anywhere. I’ve made my case, I’ll leave it at that, you can have the last word on it if you want.
@ fred 30 Jan 2014 – 11:52 pm
….although you’ve used the last hour more productively than me, I’ll give you that
“We offer two explanations for the tapering. One is technical, and one is strategic.”
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/01/30/fed-tapering/
A Node, your hour wasn’t wasted. Thanks for those details.
Cheers, Clark. Since he was moonlighting for you instead of bickering with me, your appreciation has balanced things out.
A Node
agree with Clark… The wee confab held my attention… but that is a fine piece of work…good stuff.
But £900.000/ hour Drama… No wonder the fkrs keep sending me letters 🙂 i very rarely turn the damn thing on.
Fred well done too Re the Video.
“Usmanov could still sue Craig, but he never did because Craig’s allegations are true and Usmanov would lose. ”
Oh how quaint. This is by no means guaranteed and I doubt Craig has the resources to fight a libel action.
Press TV is part of the Iranian state broadcaster, controlled and funded by the Iranian government. Not what you could call independent by any means and I’m sure they could’ve found the £100,000, a fine for broadcasting an interview under duress with someone who claims he’d been tortured and threatened with execution, but perhaps they decided the illusion of censorship had better propaganda value. Some people appear to have been taken in anyway.
Curious. Craig’s video plays for me on Youtube if I switch to HTML5 video. It will not play for me using the default settings.
To see it go to https://www.youtube.com/html5 and select use html5 player
then go to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DkldhMYlRM
and it will play fine. If it stops playing fine that’s pretty much 100% proof of censorship as opposed to technical problem.
The £900,000 an hour is for top of the range productions such as Sherlock or Dr Who from which the BBC usually makes money from overseas sales, DVDs and other spin-off products. Low quality productions such as daytime soaps cost around £50,000 per hour.
fred,
You do realise that Press TV has been removed from almost every “western” broadcasting network one by one using initially creative excuses but now just “the Americans told us to take it off or else.”
On the subject of Drama, and more specifically film…and also Whilst the likes of Johansson has been all over the internet…And since I’m heavy into First Nations History / Culture….
i was very pleased to learn that Marlon Brando once turned down an Oscar in support of Native Americans…Good on ye Sir.
On March 5, 1973, the actor Marlon Brando declines the Academy Award for Best Actor for his career-reviving performance in The Godfather. The Native American actress Sacheen Littlefeather attended the ceremony in Brando’s place, stating that the actor “very regretfully” could not accept the award, as he was protesting Hollywood’s portrayal of Native Americans in film.
On the eve of the 1972 Oscars, Brando announced that he would boycott the ceremony, and would send Littlefeather in his place. After Brando’s name was announced as Best Actor, the presenter Roger Moore (star of several James Bond films) attempted to hand the Oscar to Littlefeather, but she brushed it aside, saying that Brando could not accept the award. Littlefeather read a portion of a lengthy statement Brando had written, the entirety of which was later published in the press, including The New York Times. “The motion picture community has been as responsible as any,” Brando wrote, “for degrading the Indian and making a mockery of his character, describing his as savage, hostile and evil.”
Brando had been involved in social causes for years, speaking publicly in support of the formation of a Jewish state in the 1940s, as well as for African-American civil rights and the Black Panther Party. His Oscar statement expressed support for the American Indian Movement (AIM) and referenced the ongoing situation at Wounded Knee, the South Dakota town that had been seized by AIM members the previous month and was currently under siege by U.S. military forces. Wounded Knee had also been the site of a massacre of Native Americans by U.S. government forces in 1890.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/turning-down-an-academy-award-marlon-brando-declined-best-actor-oscar/5366844
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/9028435/Britain-bans-Irans-Press-TV-from-airwaves.html
After being dropped by multiple satellite and cable channels worldwide Press TV started to broadcast live on YouTube. Then 6 months ago their Youtube channel got suspended strangely enough.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/jan/20/iran-press-tv-loses-uk-licence
“On the eve of the 1972 Oscars, Brando announced that he would boycott the ceremony, and would send Littlefeather in his place.”
Sounds like your average luvvie.
What is the status of the BBC in Iran?
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/enforcement/broadcast-licence-conditions/press-tv-revoked
Despite claims to the contrary it’s difficult to believe that Press TV’s refusal to pay the fine didn’t affect Ofcom’s decision.
Press TV still appears to be available via it’s website and Youtube, I can’t access streaming content from where I am at the moment to be certain. That’s if anyone is still interested in it’s mix of revisionist history and barm-pot conspiracy theories.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/01/30/348500/over-half-of-russians-support-putin/
A better world view.
We have been at war with each other for too long.
Let`s not build armaments, let`s plant trees and create a better world.
Boer = Translates/Farmer
Non-essential staff at Sellafield (Windscale) have been told not to come to work today due to raised levels of radioactivity at the site.
For those with long memories. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windscale_fire One reason for renaming it Sellafield.
“Over half of Russians support Putin…”
..and he knows where the others live.
Thank you very much AlcAnon and Fred for giving Craig’s fine speech in Hyde Park following Cast Lead a further airing. Afterwards we marched to Kensington to the Israeli Embassy. There were thousands and thousands of us. That was all 5 years ago and there has been no change for the Palestinian people other than that much more of their land has been stolen.
Click on Bi’lin here, a Palestinian village and go a little westward to see the Israeli settlement of Modi’in Ilit. Just one of hundreds that are similar.
http://goo.gl/maps/wvMhM
‘I went to Bi’ilin with ……. group. Met good people, some who ran the fizzy drinks factory – a necessity and a simple pleasure in the height of summer. The European interloper had capped the well of good water from whence came the water for the factory. Perhaps they had stolen it in readiness for another damned settlement. I cannot recall whether a resolution was in sight. I think not; the factory was going to pack up.
There is a message from Wadi Foquin today. I recall the black streaks on the hillside where sewage had poured down onto the kitchen gardens. I saw cracks in the secondary school walls where rocks had been hurled down as explosives blasted off the top of a hill – yes for another settlement. I recall the long horizontal slits for ‘defensive’ weaponry and the recently planted mature trees flourishing in the square behind. There was a spring gushing into a pool down the blind wadi. ‘The wadi of thorns’ – Jewish lore respected this pool. It cleansed them you know. One day I saw about 20 young Jewish people bathing and making their way to do that. The villagers were in no way aggressive. Instead they were courteous. Now that is no good for CNN or BBC.
Then I realised it was 2008 when I visited. I wonder what state Jayyous and Bi’lin are in now?
Apart from the oppression and the armed robbery, guess the water consumption of Modi’in Ilit (‘ultra orthodox’) plus Hashomer compared with Bi’ilin. Macro crime done by black hearts. A lovely, gentle land in which the native people lived in harmony with the natural world. The concrete that has spread far and wide is symbolic, and partly in its great ugliness.’
Syria talks due to end in Geneva
The current round of peace talks on Syria is due to end in Switzerland later on Friday with little or no progress expected on core issues.
Bad luck Kerry and co.