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.
Anon, 10:11 am
So there is yet hope that you may learn the value of silence.
As, it seems, should Dieudonne. I do find it very worrying that such bigotry is becoming acceptable as humour. How popular is this “comedian”?
Mary
Did you read Russell Brands editorial in the New Statesman edition that he edited? If so could you explain what on earth he was rambling on about? You may find that some high grade skunk helps.
Carlos Latuff
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BgddJFKCEAEnn5r.jpg:large
“Did you read Russell Brands editorial in the New Statesman edition that he edited? If so could you explain what on earth he was rambling on about? You may find that some high grade skunk helps.”
To be fair, for all the revolutionary rhetoric, he has sacrificed a large part of his multi-million pound fortune, and has secured himself a luxury home in Beverly Hills, which, I don’t doubt, will be converted into a homeless shelter.
Pass the spliff.
Mary
I thought you would join John Goss in congratulating your fellow North Downs neighbour Lizzy Yarnold on her excellent gold medal (50% of Russia’s haul to date) – not funded by billions or a super rich daddy, she only took up the sport 5 years ago and an excellent role model for young girls and women (she has certainly caught the attention of my daughters).
Yes Nary – but do you think Dieudonne is an anti semite? Yes or No.
Another USUKIsNATO Kerry failure. President Assad will NOT roll over to them or to their rabble rebels.
Breaking news
Syria talks end without progress
UN mediator apologises to Syrian people as peace talks in Geneva end without making progress
Resident Dissident, 11:01 am:
Shame on you!. Mary’s research on this site helped to expose Breivik’s connections to the violent right-wing Atlas Shrug’s blog.
Apologies for my typos. I’m having to type too fast here.
There has never been a UN resolution establishing Israel.
So what was UN General Assembly Resolution 181??
Habbabkuk, my comment of 12:01 explains why I called Mary an “eminent contributor” when I asked you to lay off her about a year ago. You’ve been using the term as a general piss-take ever since. In friendliness, I request that you reconsider.
“So what was UN General Assembly Resolution 181??”
If you claim 181 established a state of Israel then you must claim it also established a state of Palestine.
BrianFujisan
Lord Lawson took the money helm after Mrs Thatcher created the world of funny money. He importantised it, psychoanalysed it, verrityfied it, sausage-roll-temperature-ised it and commended it to the global financabbial. In other words he knew it was a scam but that it was a good one.
So they chose him to importantise etc etc the world of funny carbon, the system of offsetting emmissions against invented allowances for individual countries. The system basically permits the administrators to fiddle their virtual world. Don’t forget, just because UKUSIS capitalists don’t give us any jobs here doesn’t mean that they don’t manufacture things using carbon elsewhere.
The fact that Gordon Brown bought into the Bitcoin Thatcher scam leads the powers that be to hope that Alistair Darling will buy into the Lawson funny carbon scam when he takes over in 12 month’s time. Then the Tories can benefit from the scam behind the scenes while in opposition and wriggle out of the blame for it, getting radioactive white worm Clegg to get them back in again two elections down the line.
Anon, 11:43 am, you may want to check this page:
“Misconceptions about drugs – Marijuana today is 10–20 times more potent than in the past”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misconceptions_about_drugs#Marijuana_today_is_10.E2.80.9320_times_more_potent_than_in_the_past
Look, can we find something we agree about? Any suggestions?
Clark
Why friendliness? Do you have polite exchanges with ghosts who share your house?
‘My dear spook, you are very welcome to pass through my, well, your walls as if this was, as obviously it must be, your house. But could you reconsider walking through me and other people living here,notwithstandingcustompriveledgeacquiredheretoforfor.’
He’s a troll. His job is to wind up and annoy. He considers every word he says how he can best send up, wind up and annoy with. That’s why it’s ridiculous to engage with them, even if they walk through your real flesh and bones with their spoofk ones. Clark, are you there?
Israel cherry picks bits of Balfour agreement here, bits of UN resolution there and uses it as a green light for ethnic cleansing. If they accept a resolution giving birth to a nation then they should also accept the borders. They don’t, therefore delegitimizing Israel.
The siege of Gaza has already lasted over twice as long as the siege of the Warsaw ghetto, with over 3 times the amount of people.
No shame ! Palestinians sind die Üntermenschen.
“Mary’s research on this site helped to expose Breivik’s connections to the violent right-wing Atlas Shrug’s blog.”
Pretty low to try and score political points over the murderous actions of a violent psychopath. Most of us, I would hope, can read a blog of whatever colour and not resort to what Breivik did.
“Shame on you!. Mary’s research on this site helped to expose Breivik’s connections to the violent right-wing Atlas Shrug’s blog.”
Where? The first link I can find to a link between Breivik and Atlas Shrugs is by Craig on July 21 2011. I can find Mary linking Breivik to others – or insinuating such links in her inimitable style – but nothing where she exposes the link to Atlas Shrugs.
BTW Do you think Dieudonne is an anti-Semite? Yes or no will suffice
Guano, maybe Anon can agree with me that we’re all imperfect, we all make mistakes. Forgiveness seems to be in short supply.
Eventually, the only answer is that we all learn to get along with one another. If God has any Moderators, they never seem to log into their moderation interface.
Mr Gibbs
Made his dibs
From selling the turds
Of foreign birds!
ESLO
12 Feb, 2014 – 5:53 pm
Says:
“Has it ever struck you that perhaps one of the reasons why western democracy is under challenge is because of the threat from parts of the world where they don’t believe in such essential human rights?”
You are naive ESLO. Do you think that, if the voting public elected a socialist government here or in the US, the power elites would allow such a thing?
There would be regime change one way or another; the US and UK democracies are a façade that many are now beginning to see through.
Clark, your peculiar modus operandi seems to be to make confrontational accusations and assumptions and then come over all conciliatory and apologetic. Is it the inner hippy tugging away or the relief provided by tugging away on a large bifta? Very peculiar.
Resident Dissident, was it not Mary that retrieved a vital piece of evidence from a cache? Maybe I have the wrong thread, but she certainly has done such things here. I respect Mary for good reasons.
I’ve already commented about Dieudonne. I’ll link…
Resident Dissident:
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2014/01/syria-and-diplomacy/comment-page-11/#comment-440738
Anon
I am a descendant of a different William Gibbs unfortunately.
Clark
Apology accepted.
Anon, I’ve been typing like the proverbial clappers since I discovered that this pointless row had broken out. If you could pass me a spliff I’d be very appreciative, as I’ve none in this weekend. Nor most weekends.
Re marijuana strength, yes, it can be claimed that marijuana is not much stronger than it was in the 70s, if you take the strongest then and the weakest now, but certainly I was aware only of mild hashish when I was young, and now virtually all you see is high-grade skunk (not that I partake, I hasten to add, preferring the dulcet intoxication of a Dubonnet and gin). Sorry to disagree!
@Fred
“If you claim 181 established a state of Israel then you must claim it also established a state of Palestine.”
More correctly it established a state for the Arabs and an independent Jerusalem. Some of us still believe in a 2 state solution as the best way forward – and like it not we have current international law on our side. Not that you would be likely to get an agreement around the provisions of resolution 181.
…bloody “War on Drugs” has put the price right up. Which benefits no one but Covert Ops and the damn money launderers.