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.
“Things on the flooding front must be serious. Agent Cameron has cancelled his visit to Israel next week to meet Netanyahu.”
Even the PR man realised that pictures in the sun would not go down to well at present.
ESLO, were you looking for just a five-minute argument or the full half-hour?
No just for people to stop questioning the motives of others when they have no evidence whatsoever. If Habba, I or the other non conformists here were to do the same I can imagine the reaction.
ESLO, so you would presumably agree that the treaties between Dakota Indians (as in the case between Lone Wolf v Mitchell) which were unilateral abrogated by the US were illegal?
“unilaterally abrogated”
Not long after he arrived on this blog, before I was sure whether Habbabkuk was acting in good faith or not, but after it had become obvious that his comments were disrupting the blog, I engaged with him on the subject. Here’s the time and place:
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2013/01/uzbek-cotton-slavery-campaign/comment-page-3/#comment-390472
By the time the exchange was over, I was certain that Habbabkuk was not acting in good faith.
I summerise the conversation thusly …..
Me: You are disrupting this blog.
Habbabkuk: I don’t deny it.
Me: What are you going to do about it?
Habbabkuk: Why should I do anything about it?
Me: Because this blog only works if we exercise self restraint.
Habbabkuk: But I don’t want to stop disrupting it.
Me: Well fuck you then.
….. and here’s the full transcript. Is he here in good faith? You judge.
A Node 25 Jan, 2013 – 4:54 pm:
I estimate that one third of the comments on this thread are about your behavior.
I would like to ask you a straight question: do you think this is a satisfactory situation on a political blog?
Habbabkuk:
your estimate is probably too high, but the answer to your question is no, I certainly don’t think it’s satisfactory.
A Node:
I agree it was an inflated estimate and I agree you’re not the only one to blame for the situation (as my Mam constantly told my brothers and I, “It takes two to argue”). However, as you acknowledge, we do have a problem, and unless we want to be treated like naughty school boys, it’s up to us to sort it out.
Another straight question: What measures, if any, will you take to reduce your contribution to the problem?
Habbabkuk:
what measures will I take to reduce my contribution to the problem?
Well, I’m not sure why you’re asking me to reply to that question either first or even uniquely. To answer it first could be read as(or claimed to be) an admission that I am the starting point of the problem – an assumption with which I’d have some problems. It could also be misinterpreted as meaning that the problem is between me on the one hand and the other posters on the other, whereas I think it’s been amply shown that quite a few people are slagging off quite a few others.
If I were to take an absolutist position, I’d say that I have nothing to apologise about when I post to point out, in a civil way, the errors or plain silliness of some of the other posts or parts thereof. The fact that the posters I pull up are unable to overcome my brutual intellect and unanswerable logic and resort instead to wounded silence or vulgar aggression cannot be used to somehow cast me as the villain of the piece.
A Node:
I’m addressing you because I judge you to be susceptible to reason, please prove me right. However, what I’m about to say applies to a few others here.
We agree we have a problem.
Another thing we can surely agree on is that this blog is very unusual, a meeting place for thoughtful, knowledgeable discussion, frequented by some well connected insiders. I’ve been searching for a place like this since I got my first modem, somewhere I can learn and contribute. What makes this blog almost unique? I believe it’s largely due to its informal nature – no registration, very few rules, a very light touch by the moderator. It works because Craig and Jon treat us as adults, trust us to behave responsibly rather than dictate to us how we must behave. We have to justify that trust or lose this special place. Those who call for registration and banning of certain posters, are missing the point, perhaps deliberately so. They would regulate this haven until only approved ideas are allowed, throw the baby out with the bath water.
However this blog’s strength is also its weakness. The freedom here makes it very easy to disrupt. It’s a very delicate balance.
There are regular contributors to this blog whose purpose is to spoil it. Some are easy to spot, others more subtle, some with sock puppets may be both. One shill can cause an awful lot of disruption. That is why it is necessary for the rest of us to cooperate against them, exercise self restraint even when provoked, remain united in the face of cynical mischief. I would even say that it is important that we do so, that we preserve this rare oasis of cooperation and reason in a world which wants to destroy such places.
Are you a shill, Habbabkuk? I don’t think so, but I may be wrong. I think you’re just argumentative. I enjoy a good bicker as much as the next person, but that’s not what I come to this blog for. If I want slanging matches and flame wars, I have plenty choice elsewhere. I’m sure that’s true for the majority of bloggers here. But if you’re not a shill, it has to be said that a lot of your posts have the effect of one – disruption, division, distraction. You can also be clever, amusing and insightful. Please respect the wishes of the majority and concentrate on the latter. I don’t doubt you’d make a fine job of promoting your views, and there’d be a queue of people wanting to take you on. Then if you’re not a shill, your behaviour won’t make people think that you are. And if you are a shill, you’ll have a great platform to try and win us over by reason.
And BTW, my Mam wasn’t too impressed with the “He started it” defence either.
Habbabkuk:
it would be remiss of me not to reply, but having done so – and perhaps after reading your response if you wish to make one – I think we should put an end to the exchange. I’m no less a show-off than any other man, but this over-attention from posters (even if only from a small minority of posters, to be completely accurate)is not very healthy for a number of reasons.
The principles you advance are of course sound. But, as always, the problem lies in their translation into concrete facts or events and in the interpretation of the latter. In other words, the theory is fine, the practice rather more complicated.
Let me try to obtain guidance by putting two questions based on conbrete examples of previous posts.
1/. You’ll remember that as part of her reply to someone else’s post, Mary asserted that the UK was not a civilised country. I found this objectionable and so asked her to name, by way of illustration, a couple of countries she did find civilised. As it happens, she didn’t reply, but i tecall that a couple of others stepped into the breech and attempted to fling a few pails of dung over me. Question : should I not have posed that question? Or should I have phrased it differently, eg “Mary, why do you find the UK not to be civilised”?.
2/. Someone produced a list of 12 crimes the US was responsible for in Afghanistan (it was something like that, anyway). Noting that on this blog the US invariably gets stick, whereas President Assad rarely does, I pointed out that 1O of those 12 crimes had also been/were still being practised by President Assad and wondered aloud whether the poster to whom I was replying would also now condemn President Assad in the same way as he had just condemned the US. Question : should I have refrained from sending my post?
Glad to hear your reply if you feel like it.
A Node:
I can’t make my point any clearer. The behaviour of you and others is spoiling this blog.
Your reply is very clear too. You are going to continue that behaviour.
All I can therefore do is draw my own conclusions, ignore you, and hope you go away.
I beg of EVERYONE else to do the same.
.
.
.
……and I’ve never addressed him since, and once again, I urge everyone to do the same. He’s intentionally disruptive, he wants you to reply to his goading. Don’t be his dupe.
Sorry (Lone WOlf v Hitchcock)
John
Without seeing or understanding the treaty, or knowing a lot more about framework in which that treaty was made, it would be silly for me or you to make such a call.
If the Cubans felt that the US legal claim on Guantanamo was not supportable they would seek to challenge it legally and there would also I suspect be some legal argument to support that position in the public domain. I have seen neither and the links you produced provided no such support. If you want to make a legal argument you have to have some hard facts and arguments not just a view as to what you would like to happen.
ESLO the Cubans have challenged it using:
Article 52 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969)
A treaty is void if its conclusion has been procured by the threat or use of force in violation of the principles of international lawembodied in the Charter of the United Nations.
There is also
Article 16 of the Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties (1978)
“A newly independent State is not bound to maintain in force, or become a party to, any treaty by reason of the fact that at the date of the succession of States the treaty was in force in respect of the territory to which the succession of states refers.”
But you should support the Dakota Indians who had a treaty with the US but Congress chose to disregard it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lone_Wolf_v._Hitchcock
A node
I don’t agree with your summary of your conversation with Habba. I think one of his motives as he points out is to expose and challenge many of the idiocies that appear in the comments on this blog – probably because that is what we are able to do in a democracy and he sees it as a healthy process to challenge to views that often support totalitarian regimes and worse before they can gain further currency. If you are not happy with such a challenge then tough.
As for handing out abuses and insults – I think you will find that Habba is more in the sinned against rather than sinner category. Where are the comments against English Knight/Black Jelly/Rabbi Ovada for the disgusting comments that he aims at Habba and myself.
Litvinenko widow wins inquiry ruling against ministers
By Dominic Casciani
Home affairs correspondent, BBC News
Marina Litvinenko has been campaigning for a public inquiry
‘Russia role’ in spy death suggested
The widow of a former KGB spy Alexander Litvinenko killed in London has come a step closer to a public inquiry into her husband’s death.
/..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26141627
PS What happened to an inquest on Boris Berezovsky?
Oleg Deripaska (Mandelslime/Nat Rothschild) was on the BBC yesterday talking about his investments in the infrastructure at Sochi.
Russian billionaire Deripaska: Sochi is good investment
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26117078
John Goss
And what form did the Cuban challenge take? Given that the US treaty was procured with a legally independent state of Cuba and not by force – I suspect that they know that such a legal challenge would not get very far. Given that your legal arguments are so easily dismissed I would recommend not relying on Wikipedia as the basis for legal arguments in the future.
I looked for news of an inquest for Boris Berezovsky.
Boris Berezovsky inquest date set for March 26, 27 after long delay
The Voice of Russia-28 Jan 2014
The resumption of the inquest into the death of Russian oligarch Boris Berezovsky has been set for March 26/27, 2014, according to sources …
http://voiceofrussia.com/uk/news/2014_01_28/Boris-Berezovsky-inquest-date-set-for-March-26-27-after-long-delay-2029/
Good (and flattering) of A Node to reproduce an early exchange verbatim. Having re-read it, I find the two questions I put in that last post of mine in the verbatim even more pertinent now than I did then.
I also note that A Node made no attempt to answer them at the time: he could have offered guidance by so doing, but preferred instead to urge me to go away and to implore people to ignore me.
Neither happened. 🙂
Generally I agree that relying on Wikipedia can sometimes be a mistake (because it is put together by, well, anybody).
However you will note that I actually accessed the treaties concerned to see if the argument was right.
http://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1_1_1969.pdf
http://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/3_2_1978.pdf
Enjoy.
As to the case between the Dakota Indians and the US one-sided abrogation I used the following. I provided the Wikipedia link because you confessed no knowledge.
http://dragonflydezignz.50megs.com/Dakota-38-plus-2/RETHINKING%20THE%20EFFECT%20OF%20THE%20ABROGATION%20OF%20THE%20DAKOTA%20TREATIES.pdf
Saw this. Very true.
11 February 2014, 22:08
British MPs behave “like children in a playground”
The British Parliament’s Prime Minister’s question time is supposed to be the parliamentary highlight of the week, when MPs get the chance to quiz the country’s leader. New research from the Hansard Society has found a majority of the public finds it off-putting. VoR’s Vivienne Nunis spoke to Dr Ruth Fox, Director and Head of Research at the society.
Sixty seven percent of those surveyed told the society that politicians don’t actually answer questions.
http://voiceofrussia.com/uk/news/2014_02_11/British-MPs-behave-like-children-in-a-playground-3866/
The original reason for a base in Cuba was to protect the independence of Cuba and its trading rights allegedly following the Spanish American war. But America has imposed an embargo (clearly illegal) on Cuba. Even the UN has had to condemn this with only 2 countries against the resolution. Guess who?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/29/us-cuba-un-idUSBRE99S10Q20131029
More PR propaganda for Israel from the BBC.
Next Silicon Valleys: What makes Israel a start-up nation?
Rory Cellan-Jones
By Rory Cellan-Jones
Technology correspondent
For more than 70 years, the area now known as Silicon Valley has pumped out one world-changing company after another. Now, other areas are aiming to replicate its success with their own revolutionary technologies. In the first in a new series, Rory Cellan-Jones visits Israel to discover how the so-called “start-up nation” has emerged as one of the front-runners:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-26071818
The usual exceptionalism for Israel and the usual BBC nepotism. Cellan Jones is married to the ‘Vice Chairman of the BBC Trust Diane Coyle, a former adviser to HM Treasury’.
That should be 2 other countries as well as the US.
@ ESLO
I am even more convinced that Mr Goss only dares to post his inanities because he is fairly sure that the majority of readers – and certainly all of his fellow-Eminences – are unacquainted with the subject matter and, moreover, will take his word for things without doing their own, independent research based to the extent possible on authentic texts rather than dubious websites (probable reason : this would require a little effort).
To take one of his latest posts:
1/. “ESLO the Cubans have challenged it using:
Article 52 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969)
A treaty is void if its conclusion has been procured by the threat or use of force in violation of the principles of international lawembodied in the Charter of the United Nations.”
_______________________________
They have not challenged it before any international body for the simple reasons that (i) Art. 52 does not apply and (2) even if it did, the UN Charter does not have retro-active effect (the US-Cuba Treaties pre-date the UN Charter).
2/. “Article 16 of the Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties (1978)
“A newly independent State is not bound to maintain in force, or become a party to, any treaty by reason of the fact that at the date of the succession of States the treaty was in force in respect of the territory to which the succession of states refers.””
____________________________
Quite apart from the point of non-retroactivity (yes, here again, sorry about that!), Castro Cuba was not the successor state of pre-Castro Cuba: the régime changed but the state remained.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
3/. Two further points:
a) The Vienna Convention – cited by Mr Goss – does not have retro-active effect, ie, it only applies to “new” Treaties. Cf. Article 4
b) as regards the “Treaty” between the Dakota Indians and the US govt.: the Vienna Convention only applies to Treaties concluded between states; the Dakota Indians were not a state. Cf. Article 1.
***********************
Moral : leave while the going’s good, Mr Goss., and don’t try your luck with people like ESLO and myself who know what they’re talking about. You are like a five year old trying to play Premier League football.
Habbabkuk, what a plonker. Moral: read the full texts. Your comment is nonsense, and even international lawyers cannot agree but. I gave a perfectly good example of America’s intransigence in its breaking of international law.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/29/us-cuba-un-idUSBRE99S10Q20131029
Habbabkuk, if you live to be 101 you’ll never know what it’s like to be in the premier league. I don’t want to use any fitting epithets because you never answer questions and very rarely provide substance.
“Given that the US treaty was procured with a legally independent state of Cuba and not – by force – I suspect that they know that such a legal challenge would not get very far.”
No, they wouldn’t nothing to do with the legality of their case, America isn’t too concerned with legalities. Nicaragua tried taking them to court and look where it got them.
The Tsar bade me to rid him of the rascals who chided him for being Romanov.
“How?” I rejoinded.
“They seek nothing but conflagration and chaos and cannot be reasoned with.
Use your hypnotic gaze to quell their chatterboxing and pretzel logic. They must be stopped”
“Stopped?” says I. “They are impervious because you’ve made them so”
“I?” says the monarch. “Yes” says I. “They only exist because of your acknowledgement”
Habbabkuk, if you want the truth I think you play in the league that plays with itself.
Mr Goss and certain fellow-Eminences, together with their various hangers-on and useful idiots (I note that Fred has just pooped up..) are masters of evasion and amalgam – as their posts on Israel/Palestine and here again re international law on Treaties have amply demonstrated.
This is why posters such as ESLO (Exposing Smelly Little Orthodoxies), myself and certain others perform such a valuable function on this blog: we are the true democrats and seekers after truth.
*****************
Typo in the 2nd line: I meant to write “popped up” but on reflection what I wrote is even more apposite.
Eslo 6.02pm
Please define Totalatarian regime.
Then we know what not to support.
I
ESLO judges A Node”s “summary” severely
“A node
I don’t agree with your summary of your conversation with Habba.”
__________________________
Of course, that summary is a travesty.
I used to class A Node as one of the Eminences but am now coming to the conclusion that he is a mere “useful idiot”. More idiot than useful.
Craig’s blog is degenerating, again. As they wish it to.
Clark:
“In this particular instance, my lack of faith in Habbabkuk follows from his evasive ‘answers’ to some questions I posed,”
______________________
You sound rather miffed that I answered your questions.
Your line is obviously
– Habbabkuk doesn’t answer questions and is therefore in bad faith
– when Habbabkuk does answer questions, his answers are evasive.
ESLO summed you up rather well. To which I’d merely add : you are a miserable lickspittle – who has the chutzpah to talk about respect and redemption…
@Habbabuk
Yes shit for brained little twat I popped up to point out that you are talking out of your arse as usual.
I have met people as stupid as you before but I don’t recall one so fond of showing it.
Should Cuba take America to court on the grounds they broke the terms of the lease by building a prison in violation of international law, kidnapped people and took them there in violation of international law then water boarded them in violation of international law they would have a good chance of winning and America would then ignore the findings of the court and veto any UNSC resolutions just as they did with Nicaragua.
I would have thought that would be obvious to anyone with an IQ larger than their shoe size obviously you don’t qualify.