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.
Addendum to the foregoing –
http://www.btselem.org/publications/summaries/201203_under_the_guise_of_legality
Conclusion of the above –
‘These data and other facts and figures included in the report show that the declarations of state land by Israel were substantively different from the results of the land settlements that were carried out in the West Bank during the Mandatory and Jordanian periods. This fact supports the conclusion that a significant percentage of the land that Israel declared as state land is privately owned Palestinian property, which was taken from their lawful owners by legal manipulation and in breach of local Law and international law alike.‘
ESLO, I expressed my doubt in Habbabkuk’s good faith; I did not make an accusation of outright lying. Your exaggeration causes me to doubt your good faith, too. Further, you ally with Habbabkuk while supposedly disagreeing upon important issues.
In this particular instance, my lack of faith in Habbabkuk follows from his evasive ‘answers’ to some questions I posed, which is typical of Habbabkuk. My very next comment offered Habbabkuk an opportunity to redeem himself in my opinion:
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2014/01/syria-and-diplomacy/comment-page-8/#comment-440105
ESLO, I believe that in this matter you’re merely attempting to discredit me.
Guana at 2:44 pm. What you say is good advice but while I’m being treated fairly civilly and want to see this argument developed to its conclusion I am happy to stay with it. In international law the US should not have a military base in the country against the wishes of the Cuban government. I know I’m right legally as well as morally. I lured ESLO with a question he seems reluctant to answer.
Mr Goss
You are incorrigible and very, very silly with it.
“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.”
_______________________
In the silly cases you mention, Iran would ask Israel and the UK to conclude treaties setting up such bases. Israel and the UK would decline the offer and not negotiate and sign the treaties that would be necessary to set up such bases. There would, consequently, not be any such bases. End of story. What is it that you can’t understand?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“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.”
_________________
If that it an argument, Mr Goss, then it is one which supports mine. There would not be the necessary agreements, leading to Treaties to establish such bases, between Ecuador and the US. Therefore there would be no bases. End of story. What is it you can’t understand?
********************
Idiot’s Guide to reading all of the above: is there a Treaty?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
“Life is getting better, life is getting merrier!” (J. Stalin, ca. 1932)
The following is an opinion and attitude that we are all to aware of.
There is Agreability, but where it is is a very lonely place.
http://antisubjugator.blogspot.com.au/2007/02/iraq-war.html?m=1
https://thedaywefightback.org/international/
Signed and promoted Clark – Thank-you buddy
Clark
I believe that in this matter you’re merely attempting to discredit me. No I am just trying to stop you behaving like an idiot by seeking to stand in judgement on others – the only difference between accusing someone of not acting in good faith and lying is one of semantics, and I suspect you know this very well.
I am capable of both allying with Habba on some issues and disagreeing on others – the record speaks for itself.
As for giving Habba the chance to redeem himself in your opinion – even if he wished to do so, don’t you think that suggests you have a rather higher view of your status than us mere mortals?
It’s the red high vis outfit today. He was walking the Dawlish line. YCNMIU
http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/2014/2/11/288544/default/v1/cegrab-20140211-113915-139-1-778×437.jpg
“I Walk The Line”
I keep a close watch on this heart of mine
I keep my eyes wide open all the time
I keep the ends out for the tie that binds
Because you’re mine, I walk the line
I find it very, very easy to be true
I find myself alone when each day is through
Yes, I’ll admit that I’m a fool for you
Because you’re mine, I walk the line
As sure as night is dark and day is light
I keep you on my mind both day and night
And happiness I’ve known proves that it’s right
Because you’re mine, I walk the line
You’ve got a way to keep me on your side
You give me cause for love that I can’t hide
For you I know I’d even try to turn the tide
Because you’re mine, I walk the line
I keep a close watch on this heart of mine
I keep my eyes wide open all the time
I keep the ends out for the tie that binds
Because you’re mine, I walk the line
Yesterday the green and yellow look. I can’t think of any apt lyrics.
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/2/11/1392115574857/David-Cameron-on-Chesil-B-011.jpg
ESLO, we all stand in judgement of each other. Thank you for implying that I’m an idiot, presumably another attempt to discredit me.
ESLO
I have just seen your answers to Mr Goss and I see that you’ve made the same points as I have. I thank you for your support, but I think you’ll agree that there is simply no point in trying to discuss anything like this with him. You can lead a horse (Mr Goss) to water (eg, in this case, the text of the two Treaties) but you cannot make it drink (in this case, understand the fairly simple English of the Treaties).
I hope his expertise in whichever C18 English writer he is a self-proclaimed expert in is of a higher quality than his “expertise” in international law – or even in reading the English language texts of two rather short Treaties.
Habbabkuk, people can make up their own minds who the silly one is. I repeatedly ask you to provide a link showing that the US has the right to have a presence in Cuba against the wishes of the Cuban government and its people, more particularly to have a prison there, which was not in the terms of a treaty superseded by state succession.
John Goss
What question am I reluctant to answer?
“In international law the US should not have a military base in the country against the wishes of the Cuban government. I know I’m right legally as well as morally”
Please point to the law in question – Habba has pointed to laws/treaties showing the opposite – you have just pointed to a website where the claim is made but no law is cited.
Beelzebub
I don’t see how what I have said should be any different for pre 1948 property rights in what is now Israel – unless there are international laws/treaties that change the position (you refer to legal manipulation – which is ok providing it is legal). There have been many claims in Poland for property that was taken from its legal owners after 1939.
“Thank you for implying that I’m an idiot,”
Only in seeking to say whether someone is acting in good faith or otherwise when you are not in a position to know.
ESLO – What you said:
‘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 ‘
Which applies as much to Israel as anyone else. The ongoing settlement of Israel’s state-snatched land by immigrants is illegal, internationally, and locally. Now read the link I kindly supplied.
“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.”
I asked you if that applied to all nations.
Greetings from a very hot place, in consolation there are no BG monthly direct debits to worry about either. Whilst reminding yoll my cortège had 850k followers, my ESLO and habba are simply miffed at Clark because “Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world – only to serve the People of Israel.”
There you have it PC free, deal with it and next time you feel ESLO or habba have no respect for your intelligence , damn right you are!
ESLO 3:33 pm
From: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/semantics
So the difference is one of meaning; the two terms have different meanings. I suspect you’re trying to mislead readers by suggesting the commonly known term “mere semantics”.
Article about Dag Hammarskjöld
http://www.ctka.net/pr399-congo.html
“Dag Hammarskjöld”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dag_Hammarskjold
Clark
I’m not trying to mislead anyone – my use of the word semantics is a perfectly common usage of the word. If you want to argue good faith and lying have two different meanings – then might I suggest you explain. In my dictionary if I look up good faith it leads to honesty/dishonesty and dishonesty leads to lying – you are dancing on the head of a pin if you wish to suggest otherwise. Me I prefer to call a spade a shuffel.
Which applies as much to Israel as anyone else.
Never said otherwise or professed that all acts of the State of Israel were legal. You are trying to assemble a straw man.
Good faith
n.
Compliance with standards of decency and honesty: bargained in good faith.
http://www.answers.com/topic/good-faith
Dreoilin, thanks.
Yes, Bad faith can include dishonesty, which can include outright lying. All tigers are cats, but not all cats are tigers.
Just trying to prevent you looking like an idiot, ESLO.
I asked you if that applied to all nations.
I thought I had made clear that it does.
Things on the flooding front must be serious. Agent Cameron has cancelled his visit to Israhell next week to meet Netanyahu.
Yes the focus on raising the political temperature, Rabbi Ovadia, British Gas and UK energy is the right ‘squirrel’ as a focus on the 2015 elections.
1st Proposal – split up the gas monopoly to prevent excessive profit – Ed Davey
2nd proposal – freeze consumers’ bills for 20 months – Ed Millibund
Meanwhile we must understand ‘fracking’ will severe our independence on gas imports esp. from Russia Ughhh!!
Plenty of time to think eh?
Clark
I find it difficult to believe given the context of your comment at 12:32am and in the subsequent comment at 12:47am where you also referred to “good faith” that you were not referring to the “tiger” version. But perhaps you have an alternative view as to what your accusations really meant.
I’ll say that again:
Yes let’s focus on raising the political temperature, Rabbi Ovadia, British Gas and UK energy is the right ‘squirrel’ as a focus for the 2015 elections.
1st Proposal – split up the gas monopoly to prevent excessive profit – Ed Davey
2nd proposal – freeze consumers’ bills for 20 months – Ed Millibund
Meanwhile we must understand ‘fracking’ will sever our dependence on gas imports esp. from an interfering Russia Ughhh!!
Plenty of time to think eh?
Anyone? Especially those in Scotland.
Dirty energy company, Dart Energy, is preparing to get the green light for a dangerous new way to extract fossil fuels. They want planning permission to turn Falkirk in the heart of Scotland into a commercial ‘coal bed methane field’.
If they get the go-ahead in Falkirk – fracking is one step closer to becoming a commercial reality – and the decision is likely to set a precedent for the rest of the UK. But, if we win, it will be a landmark case in the fight against dirty energy.
But the local community have fought back. They’ve fought for a pause in the planning application, and they’ve now secured a public inquiry at which the plans will be put on trial, set to begin in early March. [3] If they win, Dart Energy’s planning application will be thrown out and it could stop their dirty gas field for good.
The whole community has rallied together and has raised just over £15,000 from small donations of just a few pounds to fund their legal case. But they’re up against an opponent and an industry with bottomless pockets and the best legal support money can buy. Their £15,000 just won’t be enough to build the strongest legal case needed to win.
They need £50,000 in total to be able to present the strongest case involving the best experts. A case strong enough to win. The public inquiry is only a few weeks away – which means the money is needed right now.
Can you help by chipping in £2 today?
https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/falkirk-gas-field-donate
Jamie Mackenzie Hamilton from the local campaign group said:
“It’s a real David and Goliath situation. We are in a very strong position right now, and if we can put forward the best possible case, then there’s a genuine likelihood we can win this. If we can’t afford the representation we really don’t stand a chance. Our legal team is working round the clock at rock-bottom rates – it would normally cost much more than this. A lot is at stake for us and the whole of the UK”.
What is coal bed methane?
Coal bed methane is a form of gas trapped inside coal seams. It’s one of a number of sources of ‘unconventional gas’ that the energy industry are turning to as conventional fossil fuels run out. There is a growing body of evidence from the USA and Australia, where the industry is far more developed, that there are inherent and unacceptably high environmental and health risks associated with coal bed methane extraction.
What’s it’s relation to fracking?
Unlike shale gas, coal bed methane extraction doesn’t always involve fracking – at least not in the early years of a development. Instead, coal seams are de-pressurised by pumping out large volumes of water. But as gas flow starts to decline after a few years, wells are often fracked to increase productivity. In Australia the industry estimates that up to 40% of coal bed methane wells end up being fracked.
http://frack-off.org.uk/tag/dart-energy/http://www.dartgas.com/page/Community/Dart_Scotland_Community_Site/
http://www.dartgas.com/content/Document/DEI_MasterLicenceDatabase(20Mar13)(v1).pdf
Dart –
There’s no money and we have to have the ‘cutz’.
Austerity? What austerity?
Mark Urban@MarkUrban01 ·
Britain about to commit £2.5bn to the F-35 fighter project, buying 14 jets, support & long lead items – exclusive on tonight’s @BBCNewsnight
ESLO, were you looking for just a five-minute argument or the full half-hour?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y