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.
There are not enough Indians in the world to defeat the Seventh Cavalry.
The love of possession is a disease with them; they take tithes from the poor and weak to support the rich who rule. They claim this mother of ours, the Earth, for their own and fence their neighbors away.
I would be willing, yes glad, to see a battle every day during my life.
““That is an evasive and bull-shitting reply, Fred.”
Then fuck off and don’t reply to it shit for brains.”
_____________________
There there, Fred. Did the earth move for you after you got that out?
“There there, Fred. Did the earth move for you after you got that out?”
Fuck off prick.
I am a red man. If the Great Spirit had desired me to be a white man he would have made me so in the first place. He put in your heart certain wishes and plans, in my heart he put other and different desires. Each man is good in his sight. It is not necessary for Eagles to be Crows. We are poor… but we are free. No white man controls our footsteps. If we must die…we die defending our rights.
Custer’s Last View
Buggalugs snided: ‘(blah, blah) And now go and park your ignorant backside on an ottoman. :)’
My backside may well be ignorant. Unlike you, professor, I don’t talk out of my arse. {Buttcrack smiley}
Ottoman land laws were maintained under the Mandate until 1948. Israel grabbed land which was by right of possession under these (admittedly shambolic) laws. the property of indigenous Arabs.
Anyway, we all know that the carving up of the ME between France and Britain was the object of the exercise. Sevres was never ratified by the Turks – thanks, Kemal – Lausanne was. The Mandate was intended to administer Palestine until such time as its people (religion unspecified) could do it for themselves. Ideally, like every other state in the region, with a West-compliant government. Or. Else.
It was, in any event, ESLO who said…
‘ust 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.’
Bicker with him
Add to ‘sovereignty and independence’, ‘God promised it to us in 2000 BC’, perhaps?
pmsl
Well Res Des @ 8:32 pm you seem to be the only one that has noticed the incongruity of the US having stuffed up the hopes of Dakota Indians with a one-sided abrogation deal, that won’t allow the Cubans to do the same, and as fred said at 11 Feb, 2014 – 7:26 pm it is quite clear the Yanks would pull the veto card if it came to it. It breaks international law all round, like the main and one of two USAtan supporters in the issue of a continually illegal embargo on Cuba who it is supposed to be there to protect. So address this my non-league Habby if you’re not too tired from playing in the league that plays with itself.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/29/us-cuba-un-idUSBRE99S10Q20131029
Habba
I already have the Anne Applebaum book but I’m afraid it is one of many in my evergrowing pile of unread books. I did enjoy a travelogue “Between East and West that she wrote a few years back when she journey along the lands bordering Russia (perhaps the Ost Prussians should engage Goss QC to reclaim Konigsberg?) and it is well worth checking her website http://www.anneapplebaum.com/.
From what I know of her journalism I very much doubt that she would subscribe to your rather simplified view as to why the Soviet Empire collapsed – I think you would place rather more emphasis on the rotten system containing the seeds of its own collapse and the spirit of the ordinary people living in those countries. Having seen the relics of the old system, I know I would.
Of course because Anne Applebaum has the “wrong” position on Iraq and Israel those wishing to remain ignorant will happily feel they can ignore her obvious expertise on Eastern Europe and Russia. Perhaps given that I am currently wading through Fisk’s magnum opus some of them might wish to read to read Applebaum in retaliation!
The over-weaning stupidity contained in the Cuban expat teensy Florida minority, and the slavish devotion of every politician adhering to this gaggle of cretins goes against all my Bizness principles.
End the embargo
Totalitarianism or totalitarian state is a term used by some political scientists to describe a political system in which the state holds total authority over the society and seeks to control all aspects of public and private life wherever possible.[1]
Great; so we know now that the Democratic state is trying to hold total authority.
Forget economic growth and the money system and our decadent.immoral.value less any thing goes way of life.
Yes we are truly stupid.
Sorry, in fact only Israel supported the US in its embargo last year. It was the year before that it got support from Palau.
But the USAtan is a law unto itself: the most evil regime since NAZI Germany. Herald the war-crime trials for extra-judicial drone-killing, torture in all the countries where it has prisons. There are a few congressmen and women who should not face trial, but the evil face of America as we know it today will one day be gone. Herald the day. And herald the day when dollar-diplomacy no longer rules. We will all long-term be better off, though in the short-term it will be tough.
John Goss
I don’t know enough about the Dakota Indian case to know the rights and wrongs so please don’t attribute any views to me on that matter – I do know that it isn’t likely to be of much relevance to the legal status of Guantanamo (because the US abrogated a deal with the Dakota Indians, others are entitled to break contracts with the US doesn’t sound very convincing) and you do seemed to have failed in my challenge re legal support for that case.
As for the childish smutty references to Habba you really are too old for that sort of thing.
I had to look up Palau and it is in Micronesia. It looks like a great place to be bribed with a US naval and other bases, perhaps even a HAARP station thrown in for a fistful of US scrip, and a vote. Perhaps they’re going to build another illegal prison there where they can torture more people who do not share their ideology.
“But the USAtan is a law unto itself: the most evil regime since NAZI Germany.”
Too ridiculous for further comment. I daresay some philosopher dreamt up USAtan.
Res Des “(because the US abrogated a deal with the Dakota Indians, others are entitled to break contracts with the US doesn’t sound very convincing)”. So what is proper about the trans-Satanic superpower having conflicting arguments that both support U SAtan or am I missing something. Look, I have been around a bit and used to get that argument that if we had lost the war we’d all be speaking German, tra la la, but how much more frightening for us all to be speaking American English. God forbid!
Res Dis.
This might help you.
Here is a list of the countries bombed by the United States since the end of the Second World War:
Afghanistan 1998, 2001-
Bosnia 1994, 1995
Cambodia 1969-70
China 1945-46, 1950-53
Congo 1964
Cuba 1959-1961
El Salvador 1980s
Korea 1950-53
Guatemala 1954, 1960, 1967-69
Indonesia 1958
Laos 1964-73
Grenada 1983
Iraq 1991-2000s
Iran 1987
Kuwait 1991
Lebanon 1983, 1984
Libya 1986, 2011
Nicaragua 1980s
Pakistan 2003, 2006-
Palestine 2010
Panama 1989
Peru 1965
Somalia 1993, 2007-08, 2010-
Sudan 1998
Vietnam 1961-73
Yemen 2002, 2009-
Yugoslavia 1999
Note that these countries represent roughly one-third of the people on earth.
This list makes it seem clear that the United States has been as bellicose as any other country in the history of the world. At least, it seems clear to non-Americans. Less clear are the reasons behind the bellicosity, the reasons that so few Americans realize how bellicose they are, and the reasons that so many Americans believe their country to be peaceable and benign.
From : http://www.maurer.ca/USBombing.html
How could it be ridiculous to compare a record like that unfavourably with Nazi Germany? Please explain.
So what is proper about the trans-Satanic superpower having conflicting arguments that both support U SAtan or am I missing something.
Heard of judging each case on its merits – it is possible to be right in one case and wrong in another. If I assaulted someone who had broken the law elsewhere I don’t think that would help me much in court!
Officially, yes. Unofficially, add at least two ordnance beneficiaries; Laos and Cambodia.
Res Dis.
My last post listed US bombs delivered by plane.
There are also US bombs delivered by terrorists . You must know it’s not only happening in Syria.
Operation Gladio was a combination of gansgters and NATO operatives who collaborated together to stage terrorist acts throughout Europe, the Middle East and Latin America.
Sometimes they were designed to appear to originate from right wing groups. Other times from left wing groups.
The point was to destabilize governments that were not 100% compliant with US wishes.
Officially the program ran from 1953 to 1958 – but many researchers believe it operated a lot longer.
Interestingly, Donald Rumsfeld, whose bloody hands appear everywhere, was for a time the US’s permanent representative to NATO during the Operation Gladio program.
More at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio
Oh, they were official? Mea culpa.
Come off it Res Dis. Cases judged on merits. And you’re talking about the country that has waged war on 27 countries (thanks for that list Sofia). How many wars did Cuba, and the former USSR wage in the same period?
The USA is a law unto itself (and Israel). They called Germany a Nationalist Socialist country. I call the USA a Nationalist Capitalist country and much worse than Nazi Germany, with more lives lost to its evil forces. I also call it the USAtan of the world. It’s not philosophical but I am not a philosopher. Perhaps you can tell me why only Israel supports the US embargo on Cuba.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/29/us-cuba-un-idUSBRE99S10Q20131029
Interesting piece on the strange bedfellows, Israel, anti-castro Cubans and the many players (triangulations) surrounding Syria.
“http://mondoweiss.net/2013/09/shady-pr-operatives-pro-israel-ties-anti-castro-money-inside-the-syrian-oppositions-dc-spin-machine.html
Res Dis.
And then there’s all those 2000+ Nuclear bombs. Under Article II of the NPT, these 184 nations are prohibited from ever receiving, manufacturing or otherwise acquiring nuclear weapons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_the_Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty
This body of law is summarized most authoritatively by the International Court of Justice:
It is a “fundamental,” “cardinal,” and “intransgressible” rule that “States must never make civilians the object of attack and must consequently never
use weapons that are incapable of distinguishing between civilians and military targets.”
I’m sure Adolf Hitler would have felt like a pathetic underachiever had he lived to see all this.
Resident Dissident
“I very much doubt that she would subscribe to your rather simplified view as to why the Soviet Empire collapsed”
________________
Oh dear! If that’s a reference to my last para (Reagan, etc) then I fear you’ve misunderstood the purpose of that para……surely I don’t need to say more?
It seems a winning season boils down to ‘Exit the field; Declare Victory”
Mr Goss
“But the USAtan is a law unto itself: the most evil regime since NAZI Germany.”
plus
smutty references to (?) masturbation.
All the signs of a man cracking under pressure.
Plus the little Lapdog yapping out her list while the big, toothlesss Mastiff pauses for breath. Lovely couple 🙂
I kid you not…*chuckle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Habakkuk
Pyke conceived the idea of Habbakuk while in the US organising the production of M29 Weasels for Project Plough, a scheme to assemble an elite unit for winter operations in Norway, Romania, and the Italian Alps.[1] He had been considering the problem of how to protect seaborne landings and Atlantic convoys out of reach of aircraft cover. The problem was that steel and aluminium were in short supply and required for other purposes. Pyke realized that the answer was ice, which could be manufactured for only 1% of the energy needed to make an equivalent mass of steel. He proposed that an iceberg, natural or artificial, be levelled to provide a runway and hollowed out to shelter aircraft. From New York, Pyke sent the proposal he had composed on Habbakuk via diplomatic bag to COHQ with a label forbidding anyone apart from Mountbatten from opening the package. Mountbatten in turn passed Pyke’s proposal on to Churchill, who was enthusiastic about it.[2]
Pyke was not the first to suggest a floating mid-ocean stopping point for aircraft, nor even the first to suggest that such a floating island could be made of ice: German scientist Dr. Gerke of Waldenberg proposed the idea and carried out some preliminary experiments in Lake Zurich in 1930.[3] The idea was a recurring one: in 1940 an idea for an ice island was circulated round the Admiralty but was treated as a joke by officers, including Nevil Shute, who circulated a memorandum that gathered ever more caustic comments. The document had to be retrieved just before it reached the Sea Lord’s inbox.[4]