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.
“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
The Spectator 29 October 2011
“Who Killed Hammarskjöld? by Susan Williams”
http://www.spectator.co.uk/books/7342003/who-killed-hammarskjld-by-susan-williams/
Mr Goss
As I’ve already told you, I’ve no intention of repeating last year’s exchange. But I must correct you on a number of the points you made as I would not like readers to be misled and I’ll then consider the discussion closed as far as I’m concerned.
1/. I’m not impressed by your efforts to patronise me (“improvement”).
2/. I did not ask you to supply a copy of the Avery Porko Treaty; I contented my self with reading the text of the two Treaties in question, which can easily be found inline.
3/. Whether a Treaty is long or short (“10 clauses”) is irrelevant to any discussion. As is the fact that the base now contains a detention facility; the Treaties in question as little refer to the possibility of a future detention facility as they do – for example – to the types of ordinance which the base might be endowed with at any future moment.
4/. You may have studied international law, but you are in error in claiming that building a detention facility within a military base is illegal under said law.
5/. Repeating the “history and facts” three times – or, if you wish, ten times -does not make your interpretation of history or what you call the facts any truer.
If any reader apart from yourself is interested in last year’s exchange I would advise him or her to find the thread in question, perhaps preceding a read of the posts by a read of the text of the two Treaties.
End.
Mr Goss
I’ve just seen your second post, hence one final comment.
““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.””
Irrelevant to any serious discussion. I’m sure that in 2014 – and for long before – the purpose of the base is political rather than a military imperative; this is clear when you consider the geographical position of Cuba in relation to that of the US and the existence of other US bases in the Caribbean. But so what? The fact that the Cubans “don’t want it” is not surprising either, but as you “studies” will have told you, it is unfortunately insufficient for one party to a Treaty not to “want” it: either a given Treaty is time-limited, or itself contains provisions for its possible future abrogation, or if neither of these two is the case, then the provisions of international law in the matter of abrogation apply.
End End.
Someone, and Clark, thanks for the link Someone. While we are all looking for the murderers of Dag Hammarskjöld can we keep an eye out for who killed Olof Palme and who killed Bernt Carlsson on Pan Am flight 103 and 269 other passengers at Lockerbie. Sweden has gone from being a respectable country that gave us SIPRI and ABBA to a deplorable tool of the Yanks that stitched up Julian Assange. He must never set foot in Sweden until Satan across the Atlantic has been defeated.
Habby, you can only end something if you have given a substantive argument for your earlier claim as to having proved the legality in an earlier discussion.
“I recall that there was a long and in-depth discussion on this on this blog many months ago (together with verbatim quotes from the two treaties concerned) where it was clearly established that talk of that base being “illegal” was plain wrong.”
If you are no longer saying that then what are you saying? Have you read the link I’ve provided 3 times? US presence in Guantanamo is not legal. I have found another site which says the same. But if you can’t be bothered to read it what’s the point? Just because USAtan owns the UN, UK, Sweden and many other formerly half-decent countries and international organisations does not give it the right to occupy a country against its wishes according to my understanding of international law. Where is the link I requested that gives your argument of legality?
H, is it right for Iran to have a military base in say Israel (proximity) if Israel does not want it, or in the UK? No. The Yanks have bases all over the world. They have one at Menwith Hill near Harrogate which has never been debated in the UK parliament. They are colonising us all by stealth. But I would rather give allegiance to countries that do not start wars their leaders, than a former superpower that does nothing but start or cause wars. Could you imagine a US presidential dictator saying something like Castro said:
“In our country we have a military base against the will of our people. It has been there throughout the twenty-six years of the revolution, and it is being occupied by force. We have the moral and legal right to demand its return. We have made the claim in the moral and legal way. We do not intend to recover it with the use of arms. It is part of our territory being occupied by a U.S. military base. Never has anyone, a revolutionary cadre, a revolutionary leader, or a fellow citizen, had the idea of recovering the piece of our territory by the use of force. If some day it will be ours, it will not be by the use of force, but the advance of the consciousness of justice in the world.”
Mind you he should kick them out like the decent President Rafael Correa did. He told Julian Assange that the US could have a military base in Ecuador providing that Ecuador could have one in Miami. It’s a proper argument Habbabkuk. Learn from it.
I repeat H are you there?
”
H, is it right for Iran to have a military base in say Israel (proximity) if Israel does not want it, or in the UK? No. The Yanks have bases all over the world. They have one at Menwith Hill near Harrogate which has never been debated in the UK parliament. They are colonising us all by stealth. But I would rather give allegiance to countries that do not start wars their leaders, than a former superpower that does nothing but start or cause wars. Could you imagine a US presidential dictator saying something like Castro said:
“In our country we have a military base against the will of our people. It has been there throughout the twenty-six years of the revolution, and it is being occupied by force. We have the moral and legal right to demand its return. We have made the claim in the moral and legal way. We do not intend to recover it with the use of arms. It is part of our territory being occupied by a U.S. military base. Never has anyone, a revolutionary cadre, a revolutionary leader, or a fellow citizen, had the idea of recovering the piece of our territory by the use of force. If some day it will be ours, it will not be by the use of force, but the advance of the consciousness of justice in the world.”
Mind you he should kick them out like the decent President Rafael Correa did. He told Julian Assange that the US could have a military base in Ecuador providing that Ecuador could have one in Miami. It’s a proper argument Habbabkuk. Learn from it.”
Mods
Thanks for removing spambot comments but unfortunately it pushed my very important message to Habbabkuk onto the previous page. I’ll post the comment again later. He started something he ought to try and finish this time.
Live Webcast 2 pm UK time: US-Cuba: What is American Public Opinion Today?
http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/events/webcasts/webcast-us-cuba-what-is-american-public-opinion-today
El Pais in Spain has an advance:
56% of US citizens support a change in US ñolicy towards Cuba
http://internacional.elpais.com/internacional/2014/02/11/actualidad/1392077891_801685.html
NB The Atlantic Council has Kissinger on its board so you know what to expect. He is on a long list which includes right wing neocon war criminals such as Albright and Condoleeza Rice.
http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/about/board-of-directors
The big fish get the bonuses. The small fry get the sack.
Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.
Barclays Bonuses Up 10% As 7,000 Jobs Are Cut
The bank’s investment arm staff get bonuses more than twice the average UK worker’s income, as 7,000 job cuts are announced.
http://news.sky.com/story/1209735/barclays-bonuses-up-10-percent-as-7000-jobs-are-cut
The Today We Fight Back banner has activated on my web-space (if you’ve got Javascript blocked it doesn’t display).
http://www.killick1.plus.com/home.html
Today is the day to lobby your representatives for laws to prevent mass surveillance by the US NSA and UK GCHQ etc..
Duly signed and acknowledged Clark.
~~~~~~~
Thank you for signing!
With your signature we’ll be taking the Necessary and Proportionate Principles to politicians, diplomats, lawmakers, and judges to show them that mass surveillance is a violation of human rights–wherever it occurs.
But there’s more that can be done. Check out the digital rights and privacy groups in your country to see what’s being done to fight back against global bulk surveillance.
If you don’t see anyone fighting: start a group yourself! Remember: It might be your action, and your organization, in your country, which give us our final victory against bulk spying.
https://thedaywefightback.org/international/
Thanks again so much, for everything.
— The Day We Fight Back team
“Duly signed and acknowledged Clark.”
ditto
Goss
I’ve read your link and I can see nothing whatsoever that supports Cuba’s claim that the US base at Guantanamo is held illegally (plenty commenting on the morality – but that is something else). The fact that leases were surrendered voluntarily in Panama, Hong Kong and Macau doesn’t mean that the US is legally required to surrender its perpetual lease. Plenty of countries and foreigners own interests in property in other countries – but that doesn’t give the host state a power in international to terminate such ownership – and it would be a recipe for total chaos if it did. I notice you don’t wish to apply the same logic to the Ecuadorian embassy in London – even though it is clearly being used to obstruct due legal process within the UK and impeding on the UK’s sovereignty. I’m afraid that your definition of what is legal in international law just boils down to whether it coincides with your own moral stance – which is of course the view taken by most totalitarians when they get the chance to exercise it.
Mr Goss, John or John Goss would be a more civil way of addressing a fellow contributor.
Clark @12:32am
“I find it difficult to believe that you comment here in good faith.”
Who on earth do you think you are?
Who or what gave you the right to accuse people of lying?
Please don’t try to play the sweet reasonable voice of moderation card again in the future – you clearly have not earned the right to do so.
I find it impossible to believe that he comments here in good faith.
“Please don’t try to play the sweet reasonable voice of moderation card again in the future – you clearly have not earned the right to do so.”
Yeah, right, we’ll take our lead from you, then. And be fucking rude to you cos we ain’t earned the right to be nice. Piss off.
Chris Hedges interviews Lynne Stewart. What an amazingly stoical lady.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JHndRL6__3E Part 1
Part 2 has not appeared yet.
Craig on Lynne – http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2013/05/lynne-stewart-last-chance-for-compassionate-release/
Or even ‘Troll off and take the other trolls with you’.
Page 9 already. Things can only get worse. They know Daddy Craig is abroad so will attempt to take advantage like the proverbial mice while the proverbial cat’s away.
ESLO, we found some common ground in literature. Let’s see if we can find some in politics.
Reagan said that we don’t care about the views of the Cuban people. We are there for political reasons. Or words to that effect. That being the case is it real democracy to invade a country and stay against the wishes of the people? They are not paying rent. They are not wanted there. The agreement was with Batista’s government and they were overthrown by Castro. Therefore there is no agreement.
When the Great Powers, as they liked to be known, “defeated” the Kaiser’s Germany they imposed new treaties. Whether they were good, Versailles, Genoa, Rapallo etc is debatable. But they were upheld for some time by the then League of Nations. The United Nations replaced the League of Nations after WWII and new treaties were enacted. The United Nations should uphold Cuba’s right to independence. Now if your argument is that it is all right to plant a base in a country because it is ideologically different that has no substance in international law. Why did the US not have a base in the former Soviet Union to spy on it?
However since no nation states, except the poorer ones, obey international law, international law and the international organisations that are supposed to administer it are a waste of time.
John
You miss my point – just because a country is independent it doesn’t give it the right to rip up previous contracts for property every time there is a change of government in that country. International or any law would have no substance if such behaviour was permitted – on your argument any such contracts could just be ripped up by simply crying out that sovereignty and independence overrode any previous legal agreements.
The reason why the US does not have a base in the former Soviet Union to spy on it is simply that the USSR or its predecessors never entered into an agreement for such a base. They did sell Alaska to the USA – but only a few crackpots would argue that they now have the right to revoke that contract.
Mine opened up on my website too Clark. But I had already signed from an email link. For those not aware this is really important, unless you want the NSA security agency spying on you for the rest of your lives. 88,000 signatures so far.
https://thedaywefightback.org/international/?r=dp
BootboiOi
And accusing someone of lying isn’t rude in your book?
Tell me then ESLO does that argument apply to all nations?
Signed
I have been aware of Muslim on Muslim spying and MI5-Muslim feeding false information since 2005. I found mis-directed texts much earlier. We have to emphasise that being spied on and reported upon affects us psychologically. The spiers say that they are preventing problems whereas in fact they are creating them. You have only got to be interviewed by your local rag to know how easily the story can be manipulated to maximum news effect. What chance have you got to be fairly represented when the spiers are politically, ethnically or religiously biassed? Z.I.L.C.H
“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.”
Okay, you are officially misrepresenting facts. The protesters in Istanbul hated the government. Thus couldn’t support the military,in fact military was sent against them in the later stages of the protests.
Egypt and Turkey are dissimilar. Your arguments are baseless and in fact they are carbon copies of “liberals” in Turkey who are now the laughing stock of the whole leftist community and the country.
Fact: Even the non “mainstream” guys in the west don’t really get Middle East. Thus they take a position and even when there are factual inaccuracies in interpreting the situation, they stick to it. Which of course, leads us to today.
A prime minister can be more oppressing than a military coup regime as long as they side step the fault lines of the western “hardcore” critics or just rely on the media to hide the truth.
And that’s how they can be hailed as reformers or anti establishment.
Reality check: Politicians in Turkey see the turkish government as a sinful organization. So their whole agenda is beyond reproach according to them. That’s why they can, through money and intimidation, place soviet style commissioners to each of the main stream media conglomerates. A tactic even the coup regime didn’t employ.
In Egypt there was a dictatorship with military background. In turkey, the military and the Bureaucracy were strong but they were ultimately circumvented by the elected government. It is of course easier to lump them together but intellectually dishonest.
BootboiOi
And accusing someone of lying isn’t rude in your book?
++++++++
1. Not if they’re lying.
2. Clark didn’t accuse anyone of lying.
3. Clark was addressing Hubbubkak, not you.
4. Piss off.
John Goss
Surely even if the trolls were truells, rather than cruells, they are only there to disconnect the thread? Even when the devil whispers the truth we Muslims know he is only trying to lead us up the garden path.
Try not treading on the cracks, you pretty soon fall flat on your face. Why not ignore them – totally?
‘You miss my point – just because a country is independent it doesn’t give it the right to rip up previous contracts for property every time there is a change of government in that country. International or any law would have no substance if such behaviour was permitted – on your argument any such contracts could just be ripped up by simply crying out that sovereignty and independence overrode any previous legal agreements.’ (ESLO)
Ah. So Ottoman property rights still apply in Israel, then. A lot of people will be very happy to hear that!