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.
Interesting Mary, thank for the link.
this looks like a good read –
Return to Palestine: One Woman’s Journey is highly relevant reading for those who wish to know how the Palestinian heart beats in this most crucial century in human history whose central focus is on events in Palestine, Israel and the Middle East.
http://www.jinnahevanspalestine.com/book/
Mary, Gilabrand is probably a cultured academic who is also an expansionist Zionist. But at least he or she wants Asaf Romirowsky correctly identified as Israeli, or preferably purged from Wikipedia altogether.
Gilabrand’s sort of distortion is practised by the other side too, and they also can be just as venomous as the Gila Monster. We should try to avoid polarisation, which can only help to prolong the conflict.
Of course the injustice originated in 1948 when international powers decided to create a new state called Israel on land that was already occupied, and continues to be made worse by Israel’s expansionist and racist policies. But none of that excuses any of us now from striving to apply the highest ethical and moral values equally to all parties currently involved.
Clark I find it difficult to give equivalence to the Occupier and the Occupied having closely observed the situation for nearly a decade.
John Goss, I looked through the patent application linked from your rense.com page. Nothing there, nor any other evidence I’ve ever found, suggests that HAARP can induce earthquakes. It can achieve local influence upon the ionosphere and hence alter major pre-existing air flows lower in the atmosphere, but that does not imply that it can induce storms at distant specific targets. At three megawatt it sounds pretty powerful, but that pales into insignificance compared with even minor meteorological events.
HAARP certainly was developed for its military potential; as detailed in the patent, it can be used as a communication device, even to submarines beneath the surface, and it can disrupt communication, too. It may be able to physically interfere with or even cause the destruction of missiles passing through the atmosphere, and it can certainly disrupt their guidance and navigation systems.
If you were suspended above it it could probably cook you and give you cancer. And I doubt very much that the US shut it down before replacing it with something more powerful. It’s worse than Kempe suggests, but not as bad as Rense makes out.
Mary, I feel for you and wish you strength, especially considering the abuse you’ve been subjected to on this blog.
Nevermind
“If you don’t mind, poor soul, we will talk about inhumanities in Guantanamo here as lomng as we see fit and there is enough reason to do so, wether its to your liking or not.”
_________________________
And you are of course perfectly entitled to do so. But that is not the same theme as that of whether the base at Guantanamo is held legally or not. That question has already been discussed and clarified to the satisfaction of all – which is why it has only just been reanimated again after about 9 months of absence by Mr Goss in his attempt to show the benevolent and noble side of President Castro.
Resident Disident says
“Perhaps you might wish to point out the distinction to many who post here who are unable to distinguish between anti-Judaism (or anti Semitism to give it its more usual and dictionary definition) and anti-Zionism. The failure to be able to distinguish has made this blog little short of a sewer in recent days –”
__________________
Resident Dissident is correct. It has been said in the past that this blog is Britain’s third (or perhaps second?) most read political blog. This may still be so, but it does also seem reasonably clear that this blog is well on its way to becoming one of Britain’s premier anti-semitic and anti-Jewish blogs. For that, the blame rests with a small group of Eminences. To borrow from Resident Dissident’s image, I’d call them the Sewer Rats. I’d add en passant that I’m proud of having flushed out a number of them as people who even deny the right of Israel to exist.
“Mary, I feel for you and wish you strength, especially considering the abuse you’ve been subjected to on this blog.”
________________________
And, surely, considering the abuse she has handed out to sundry objects of her all-encompassing displeasure?
I don’t know how deeply you share Mary’s apparent hatred of so many people and institutions, Clark, so for the moment I’ll just call your leaping to her defence the act of a “useful fool”.
BTW, do you know the meaning of the word “abuse”?
Habbabkuk, some questions for you.
What does a state have to do in order that it forfeit its right to exist? What responsibilities accompany such a right?
Why does this “right to exist” only ever seem to be applied to Israel?
Did pre-2003 Iraq have a “right to exist”?
And some general advice. If you truly wish to improve the quality of debate on this blog (as you have claimed), try treating your fellow contributors with respect.
“You continue to dig yourself into a deep hole in your misunderstanding of US illegal occupation of Cuba.”
_______________________-
Gosh, Mr Goss, in the space of a couple of hours we have leapt from an illegal occupation of Guantanamo to an illegal occupation of Cuba.
Either there is truly no limit to the US’s nefariousness, or it is perhaps well past your bedtime.
*******************
“The page from which I took the Castro quote was written by an American citizen.”
Otherwise known as the “Mary gambit” – “I didn’t say that, it was the bloke I was quoting” . Not good enough, John – you wouldn’t have quoted that unless you endorse what was siad, would you.
“By the way I’m still waiting for your rationale as to why we should be celebrating with you the UK economic growth predictions of the IMF.”
_____________________
That’s OK, Mr Goss. No worries! I and the 99% will just keep celebrating the higher growth and lower unemployment figures (and the further improvements to come) and you and the 1% can keep bemoaning them and predicting the end of the world as we know it in ……when was that again?
Habbabkuk, I’m sorry to say it, but you seem to have a mind like a typical British party-politician. You seem to attempt to drag all conversation down to the sort of meaningless polarised rhetoric we get at Prime Minister’s Questions.
“The raucous voices on the Right of the house
Echo down the Street of Shame”.
Clark:
Habbabkuk, some questions for you.
____________
With pleasure, Clark.
~~~~~~~~~~
“What does a state have to do in order that it forfeit its right to exist? What responsibilities accompany such a right?”
___________
There are shelf-fulls of books on political theory and international relations that go into questions such as those. As I have no intention of writing an entire chapter (at least) on this blog, I suggest you read some of them to obtain your answer.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Why does this “right to exist” only ever seem to be applied to Israel?”
_____________
Perhaps because Israel appears to be, for some, the only existing state whose right to exist is contested.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Did pre-2003 Iraq have a “right to exist”?”
_______________
To the same extent as post-2003 Irak has the right to exist.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“If you truly wish to improve the quality of debate on this blog (as you have claimed), try treating your fellow contributors with respect.”
___________________
I would be slightly more inclined to listen to your suggestion if you could demonstrate convincingly that people who lay everything at the door of the Rothschilds, or the Bilderbergers, or the international Zionist conspiracy, or the evil USA and West – I shan’t go on – deserve my respect or the respect of the 99%.
Habbabkuk, I’m an tech, not a political theorist. When someone wants to protect their computer from malware or ensure their privacy on the Internet, I tell them “open this, click here, click there”, not “go learn all the things that I already know, and then you can do it for yourself”. Our strength as a community lies in our diversity; I hope you agree.
I find it difficult to believe that you comment here in good faith.
Hababkuk, your first and fourth answers imply that a state’s right to exist does have limits.
Therefore, for the sake of debate, I present a proposition that Israel has forfeited its right to exist in its current form by its repeated and ongoing breaches of international law, by committing war crimes, and by implementation of systemic expansionism, racism and ethnic cleansing similar to South African apartheid.
Now since you claim familiarity with the books of political theory in your first answer, let’s see if you’re debating in good faith.
I have to Agree with you’re last sentence above Clark @ 12;32
A heartfelt plea, by ex u.s marine Ross Caputi
Dear Secretary Kerry,
I am writing to you veteran-to-veteran, man-to-man. However, I have decided to write to you publicly. The issue that I am writing about is too important, too many lives depend on it, and I cannot take the chance that this letter and the linked petition will only reach the eyes of one of your aides.
Like you, I felt betrayed that my country sent me to fight an unjust war, though my war was several decades after yours, and in Iraq. I have spoken out against that war to the best of my ability, as you once did against your war before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In recent years you have found yourself on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, but your attitudes towards war have changed drastically.
You supported the war in Iraq, the war that I was deployed to as a Marine, where I participated in the 2nd siege of Fallujah. You were at the end of your Presidential run during the build up to this operation. The 2nd siege of Fallujah was compared to Hue City for its military character, and to the My Lai Massacre for its moral character. But you supported this operation.
Fallujah is currently under siege once again. You have stated that US troops will not be sent back to Iraq to assist in the current siege, but you have agreed that the US should send weapons to the Iraqi government. I am writing to implore that you do everything within your ability to stop shipments of US weapons to Iraq, whether they are sold, gifted, or loaned. Arming an oppressive regime so that they may better crush a popular uprising is not in the best interest of Americans or Iraqis.
During that 2nd siege of Fallujah we killed thousands of civilians, displaced hundreds of thousands, destroyed nearly the entire city, and brought immeasurable loss and hardship upon those poor people. Since then I have devoted my life to raising awareness about the suffering I helped create in Fallujah, and to assisting Fallujans in their struggle with a public health disaster and ongoing repression…..
The current violence in Fallujah has been misrepresented in the media. The Iraqi Ministry of Interior asserted earlier in the month that al Qaeda had taken over half of Fallujah and the media parroted this assertion. However, journalists who have done serious investigations into this assertion found it to be false. The uprising in Fallujah is a popular uprising, not one lead by an international jihadist group. The Iraqi government has not been attacking al Qaeda in Fallujah. Their assault has been indiscriminate, killing dozens of civilians and wounding even more. Many of these deaths have been documented by human rights organizations within Fallujah.
I know that the US plans to send further shipments of Apache attack helicopters and Hellfire missiles. If we continue to send weapons to the Iraqi government, we will be further complicit in this violence. Iraqis have long known the Maliki regime to be brutal and repressive. This is not a regime the US should be sending weapons to. Some of your colleagues in Congress have voiced this same concern….
I have attached a petition with 11,610 signatures.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/war-on-iraq-open-letter-to-john-kerry-from-fallujah-veteran/5368111
Clark
Further to you’re comment ‘ 12;49 am
“Therefore, for the sake of debate, I present a proposition that Israel has forfeited its right to exist in its current form by its repeated and ongoing breaches of international law, by committing war crimes, and by implementation of systemic expansionism, racism and ethnic cleansing similar to South African apartheid.”
….. some More on what has been going on –
The West has carefully cultivated Israel into “regional bully.” Immune from international condemnation, it is now being used to commit egregious war crimes against neighboring Syria, in hopes of provoking a retaliation and giving the US and its regional axis the justification it has long sought to militarily intervene.
Unprovoked, Israel has attacked Syria numerous times over the past 2 days, including attacks on the Syrian capital of Damascus, in what appears to be a series of intentional provocations designed to drag the region into a wider conflict its US sponsors can then enter militarily. Neither attacked directly by Syria, nor able to cite credible evidence in regards to perceived threats Israel claims to be reacting to, the assault on Syria represents a Chapter VII breach of the United Nations Charter.
What’s more, is that while the US feigns disassociation with Israel’s breach of international peace, after jointly fueling a genocidal sectarian conflict within Syria’s borders for the past two years, it is documented fact that the US and Saudi Arabia planned to use Israel to conduct military attacks against Iran and Syria, they themselves could not justify politically, legally, or strategically.
What is now hoped is that Syria and Iran retaliate militarily, allowing the “other shoe to drop,” and for the US, UK, France, and their regional axis to directly intervene in Syria, and with any luck, Iran.
Insidious Ploy Engineered and Documented in 2007-2009
As early as 2007, it was reported that a US-Saudi-Israeli conspiracy to overthrow the governments of Iran and Syria by arming sectarian terrorists, many linked directly to Al Qaeda, was already set in motion. Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh in his 2007 New Yorker article, “The Redirection,” stated (emphasis added):
“To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.”
Of Israel and Saudi Arabia’s partnership it specifically stated:
”The policy shift has brought Saudi Arabia and Israel into a new strategic embrace, largely because both countries see Iran as an existential threat. They have been involved in direct talks, and the Saudis, who believe that greater stability in Israel and Palestine will give Iran less leverage in the region, have become more involved in Arab-Israeli negotiations.”
Additionally, Saudi Arabian officials mentioned the careful balancing act their nation must play in order to conceal its role in supporting US-Israeli ambitions across the region. It was stated even then, that using Israel to publicly carry out attacks on Iran would be preferable to the US, which would ultimately implicate the Saudis. It was stated:
“The Saudi said that, in his country’s view, it was taking a political risk by joining the U.S. in challenging Iran: Bandar is already seen in the Arab world as being too close to the Bush Administration. “We have two nightmares,” the former diplomat told me. “For Iran to acquire the bomb and for the United States to attack Iran. I’d rather the Israelis bomb the Iranians, so we can blame them. If America does it, we will be blamed.””
This ploy was further developed in 2009 by the Fortune 500-funded (page 19) Brookings Institution in their document, “Which Path to Persia?” In regards to Iran, and now clearly being utilized against Syria, the gambit was described as follows (emphasis added):
“…it would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be. Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it. (One method that would have some possibility of success would be to ratchet up covert regime change efforts in the hope that Tehran would retaliate overtly, or even semi-overtly, which could then be portrayed as an unprovoked act of Iranian aggression.) ” -page 84-85, Which Path to Perisa?, Brookings Institution.
And:
“Israel appears to have done extensive planning and practice for such a strike already, and its aircraft are probably already based as close to Iran as possible. as such, Israel might be able to launch the strike in a matter of weeks or even days, depending on what weather and intelligence conditions it felt it needed. Moreover, since Israel would have much less of a need (or even interest) in securing regional support for the operation, Jerusalem probably would feel less motivated to wait for an Iranian provocation before attacking. In short, Israel could move very fast to implement this option if both Israeli and American leaders wanted it to happen.
However, as noted in the previous chapter, the airstrikes themselves are really just the start of this policy. Again, the Iranians would doubtless rebuild their nuclear sites. They would probably retaliate against Israel, and they might retaliate against the United States, too (which might create a pretext for American airstrikes or even an invasion).” -page 91, Which Path to Perisa?, Brookings Institution.
And Israel not waiting for a plausible justification to attack Syria is exactly what has just happened. It should also be noted in particular, the last paragraph which gives insight into what the US-led axis plans to do after this egregious international crime – that is – to incrementally engulf the region into a conflict it finally can justify its own entry into open military aggression…..
What Should Syria and its Allies Do?
Syria, Iran, Russia and other nations that support the besieged nation most certainly were aware of the Brookings document “Which Path to Persia?” and familiar with this strategy. It would be hoped that anything of value that the Israelis would seek to attack in order to provoke a much desired retaliation and subsequent war, would have been provided additional protection, or moved entirely out of range of potential Israeli attacks.
A media campaign to illustrate the hypocritical and very revealing convergence between Al Qaeda (the so-called Free Syrian Army or FSA) and Israeli interests would undermine whatever remaining support the battered and failing Western-backed terror campaign inside Syria may still have.
Additionally, Israel’s selection by the US to carry out this attack was done specifically BECAUSE ISRAEL HAS LONG AGO EXHAUSTED ITS INTERNATIONAL LEGITIMACY. What it is doing in Syria is a blatant international crime, in direct violation of international law. Currently, Syria and its allies hold the moral high ground against an enemy who is no longer fooling the world. If it is calculated that Syria can survive Israel’s unprovoked brutality, it would be best to do little or nothing, and incur internationally the same outrage that accompanies Israel’s brutality against the Palestinians.
Some more from this Piece @
http://www.globalresearch.ca/unprovoked-israeli-act-of-aggression-against-syria-prelude-to-a-broader-war/5333922
This link was sent this morning. It turned my stomach. A 13 year old who will end up in a military court and then an Israeli jail.
Israeli soldiers pose for photos while abusing Palestinian child
Ali Abunimah on Sun, 02/09/2014
http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/israeli-soldiers-pose-photos-while-abusing-palestinian-child
Ali Abunimah is the editor of EI and he is punctilious about the accuracy of his reports.
“Gosh, Mr Goss, in the space of a couple of hours we have leapt from an illegal occupation of Guantanamo to an illegal occupation of Cuba.”
Why don’t you read the article and argue the facts? Is the something wrong with the facts? Is there another argument. You mention the Guantanamo illegal occupation in Cuba that I discussed some twelve months or so ago, but again no argument. Most readers of this blog must find it ludicrous that you have no sense of argument and just try to attack individuals who don’t share “one’s” views, whatever they are. Here is the history again. Argue against it! Not my beliefs, or non beliefs, as you perceive them!
http://www.historyofcuba.com/history/funfacts/guantan.htm
BrianFujisan and Mary
Thanks for your tireless efforts – not writing doesn’t mean people are not reading. I still don’t agree with the story line that the purpose of all this destruction is to help the Sunni Saudis against Shi’a Iran. To my mind Israel always does war by way of deception. If they are allied to the Saudis why have they cranked up the Russian support of Assad? To exhaust Syria and annexe its land. Israel and Iran are ideologically united cabbala worshippers. A neutralised Syria, Iraq and Egypt will form a buffer for Israel from their ideological enemies, Sunni Turkey, Saudi and North African Islam.
Mr Goss
““Gosh, Mr Goss, in the space of a couple of hours we have leapt from an illegal occupation of Guantanamo to an illegal occupation of Cuba.”
Why don’t you read the article and argue the facts? Is the something wrong with the facts? Is there another argument. You mention the Guantanamo illegal occupation in Cuba that I discussed some twelve months or so ago, but again no argument. Most readers of this blog must find it ludicrous that you have no sense of argument and just try to attack individuals who don’t share “one’s” views, whatever they are. Here is the history again. Argue against it! Not my beliefs, or non beliefs, as you perceive them!”
___________________________
I find your focus – as well as that of Clark (cf above) – on me rather than on the arguments and facts rather otiose, but I’ll do you the courtesy of replying nevertheless.
1/. When I said “the illegal occupation of Guantanamo”, must I spell it out that I’m referring to YOUR VIEW that the holding of the Guantanamo base is illegal? As you well know, I do not share your view; mine is that it is not illegal and I base this view on a reading of the two Treaties signed in the first half of the last century. As you yourself admit, there was a substantial discussion on this issue about a year ago and I have no intention of repeating that discussion now. More generally, I also have no intention of “arguing against history”: I merely argue (or, in this specific case, HAVE argued, about a year ago) against YOUR INTERPRETATION of history.
2/. It follows from the above that I do not attack those people who don’t share my beliefs; I argue against those beliefs and if you’re unable to distinguish between an attack against their beliefs and an attack against those people themselves then I suggest that it’s you who has a problem and not me.
Hope that’s clear. I shall do Clark the same courtesy later in the day, time permitting.
From, Brookings Institution in their document, “Which Path to Persia?” (Thanks Brian)
“Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game…”
Sorry, Brookings guys, but the rest of the world has long ago recognized the game. That is, all but the willfully ignorant, and of course, Dad (otiose?).
“When I said “the illegal occupation of Guantanamo”, must I spell it out that I’m referring to YOUR VIEW that the holding of the Guantanamo base is illegal? As you well know, I do not share your view; mine is that it is not illegal and I base this view on a reading of the two Treaties signed in the first half of the last century. As you yourself admit, there was a substantial discussion on this issue about a year ago and I have no intention of repeating that discussion now. More generally, I also have no intention of “arguing against history”: I merely argue (or, in this specific case, HAVE argued, about a year ago) against YOUR INTERPRETATION of history.”
It’s an improvement Habby. However I do not recall you using any arguments regarding the illegal occupation by the USA of Guantanamo Bay. What I do recall is you asking me for a copy of the Avery Porko treaty. I just provided you with a link which you clearly did not read. This is someone else’s history. Read them and criticise Jerry Siera rather than me. I do believe it is a correct history. If you disagree give me your alternative link to this.
http://www.historyofcuba.com/history/funfacts/guantan.htm
All pre-Castro agreements between the US and Cuba when the US had a puppet Cuban government, are short, no more than ten clauses, if I remember correctly. However none of them makes provision for having a prison there (the history tells you when the prison camp was originally built to contain Haitians). Now I have studied international law and building a prison without permission invalidates a treaty. Either the Yanks should leave immediately or renegotiate. Now, based on the history and facts I have provided, three times now, what are your interpretations. Or don’t you want to learn the truth?
PR initiative on the floods ongoing. Following Agent Cameron’s visit to Dorset yesterday and Cornwall today, Cleggover in Burrowbridge yesterday, we now have Hammond in Wraysbury today speaking of liasing with ‘Gold Command’ or some such. Hammond is the MP for Runnymede and Weybridge so is obviously closely involved.
They are all getting worried about the election in 2015 but are powerless to improve the situation for the flooded out electorates. The situation is steadily deteriorating. These ConDems should get back to their desks and attempt to govern instead of making these media appearances.
Ah, the wholly impartial Brookings Institution, often cited by the BBC….
“In 2002, Haim Saban pledged $13 million to start a research organization at the Brookings Institution called the Saban Center for Middle East Policy. To put this Policy Center into perspective one should note:
the Brookings Institute is the principal Democratic Party think-tank and all issues, and it is a place where “politicians in-waiting” can bide their time until the next election.
Haim Sabban is a large media mogul, with large interests in the US, and his company is the largest broadcaster in Germany (owns “ProSiebenSat.1 Media, putting him in control of a company that owns the rough equivalent of CBS, ABC, TBS and Nickelodeon”)
Saban says “I’m a one-issue guy and my issue is Israel”.
It is difficult to imagine that the Brookings-Saban Center will be a think-tank that will represent or research the Middle East with the interests of the broad base of the Democratic party in mind.
Source: Andrew Ross Sorkin, “Schlepping to Moguldom”, New York Times, September 5, 2004.”
(Via Wikipedia)
It gets better:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Saban_Center_for_Middle_East_Policy
” (The Saban Center’s) current director is the veteran pro-Israel lobbyist Martin Indyk, who had earlier founded the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, an AIPAC spinoff, to counter the Brooking Institution which was seen as not pro-Israel enough”
And Martin Indyk is currently…Kerry’s chief negotiator in the Israel-Palestine talks? Correct.
“205859963 Letter From Ban Ki Moon Asking UN General Assembly to Look Into New Evidence Concerning Death of Dag Hammarskjold”
http://de.scribd.com/doc/206194076/205859963-Letter-From-Ban-Ki-Moon-Asking-UN-General-Assembly-to-Look-Into-New-Evidence-Concerning-Death-of-Dag-Hammarskjold
Habby, while you’re searching round for an alternative history what do you think about Reagan’s admission that the US would impose its will regardless?
“October, 1985. In an interview with Soviet journalists, U.S. President Ronald Reagan affirms that the purpose of the base is political: to impose the U.S. presence, even if the Cubans don’t want it.”
from the link I provided.
Someone, 10:14 am, thanks.
Does anyone have access to The Spectator, 29 October 2011? There could be interesting information about this on page 36.
Clark 11 Feb, 2014 – 10:40 am
You can keep up with the story here
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=35243913e66f30f6ed451fef0710982f&showtopic=19302&hl=
@Someone – Despite a long career in diplomacy, the only book he left behind was “Markings”, a road map of his Christian esoteric search. Reading between the lines he might just have made it through the dialectic. And we have the “chosen” monkeys thinking the greenback is what its all about !!