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.
Thought I would look your Ms Harf up Doug.
She has a lot of previous so to apeak. Here is some.
http://the-embassy-of-peace.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/who-if-marie-harf.html
Obama seems to surround himself with these harpie warmongering women. Harf, Nuland, Susan Rice at the UN, that ex Amnesty US woman Suzanne Nossel, and so on. Perhaps they flatter him.
~~~
LOL Hokey Cokey If it was raining in the lunch hour at school, we used to do Scottish or English country dancing and occasionally the Hokey Cokey. Can you imagine the kids nowadays doing the same?
Hello Write-on. Ben Here.
” Left have a lot to answer for here as they have passively watched while a totalitarian form of democracy has emerged since 9/11, a totalitarian form welded to aggressive warfare and a neo-conservative, neo-imperialist agenda,”
Well the re-set has to do with the tolerance for Capitalism with all it’s trappings. The Left bear some responsibility for allowing themselves to be assimilated into a homogenous goo of bi-partisan hackery. The putative ‘Left’ has been engaged in a form of Detente and capitulation since the late 70’s when activism began to be viewed by mainstreamers as violent and nihilistic. The wave of conservative trending is starting to recede. Time to reactivate.
“Kempe,
http://www.un.org/depts/dhl/resguide/scact_veto_en.shtml
Who is the veto king over the last 30 years say ”
Irrelevant. We’re discussing Syria not who’s used the most vetos, classic example of what another poster raised; anything can be excused if it can be proved the US/UK/Israel did anything remotely similar at any time in the past. You just don’t get it do you? No matter how many times the US might’ve used it’s veto in the past 30 years IT DOESN’T MAKE IT RIGHT FOR RUSSIA AND CHINA TO DO SO NOW.
Anyway why 30 years? Go back to the early days and it looks very different.
@Uzbek in the UK
“I bet many on this blog would prefer first option as it at least free us from moral responsibility of slaughter. Who (be honest) gives a toss of people slaughtered here and there, as long as we are not involved (for whatever motive). This is general criticism of left liberal within liberals. Left liberals are not satisfied with the current state of affair but western involvement makes things worse (which is true in most cases). Yes, fair enough it is understandable approach. But non-involvement does not make things better either. Especially when siding with others (non west) who still gets involved and take part in the slaughter, especially on the side of those who have least moral standing in this (slaughter).”
I am afraid that this sort of thinking is a little too deep for many here – who I am afraid are either too conditioned by their tribal position on Iraq/Islam/Israel, an automatic assumption that it only the West is capable of imperialism and the worst abuses of human rights, and in not a few cases a lingering addiction to following the old Soviet and anti Western party line which Comrade Putin has not adopted to his mafia activities ( I appreciate this may be a little unfair the Sicillian branch who could only dream of operations on the same scale). I suspect that not a few here, if they had been around would have been condemning the UK and France for going to war over the Nazi invasion of Poland.
They do not recognise that there is a perfectly respectable case for Liberal intervention in other countries e.g. John Stuart Mill specifically identified a number of cases where such intervention was appropriate. They also, perhaps understandably given recent history, leap to the assumption that such liberal intervention has to be in the form of a military invasion and ignore the many alternatives that need to be considered beforehand. Some also have a nasty arrogance in that they automatically assume that those who disagree with them, despite their protestations to the contrary are neo-con war hawks (or similar) who hold a position that is diametrically opposed to their own one eyed view.
Fortunately, some of us have two eyes and we are prepared to use them and recognise that human rights are meant to be universal.
@ Uzbek in the UK
“No one here seem to give a toss about the fact that current Assad has inherited the throne from his farther and that the family has been running whole country like their private firm for the last 43 years. Yes, 43 years it is longer than some of royal dynasties in European history”
_____________________
I hope you don’t include me in the “No one here”, because I have been poking drawing readers’ attention to this medieval and absurd fact for quite a while now. Witness my broadcasting of the famly firm’s name:
“Assad @ Sons, est. 1971. Torture, imprisonments and exiles our speciality. Gassings undertaken”.
And while we’re about it, how about that other great medieval Monarchy, the Kims of the laughingly-styled “Democratic” Republic of North Korea? They’ve been reigning for the last 65-odd years, I believe.
Comment from John Goss?
Mary
I’m not sure why you are asking me, who you no doubt consider to be a unreliable source, to confirm what you have been told by a source you deem to be reliable. Nevertheless, the changes in the handles I used were all pretty well documented at the time. Interesting all this suggests that Mary and others have some form of network outside this blog – perhaps this is why they assume that their opponents behave in a similar co-ordinated manner. I do trust that I am on the list of those to dealt with come the Revolution – I wouldn’t want to be left off.
Habba
I’m sure John Goss only considers the life of dynasties in relation to that of his beloved Rothchilds.
I repeat, Habbabkuk (La vita è bella! 21 Jan, 2014 – 5:42 pm
In another of his discursive comments Habbabkuk asks us to join him in celebrating an IMF prediction that UK economic growth is improving.
“Splendid news courtesy of the IMF, whose latest forecast had upped UK growth from 1,9% to 2,4%.
I’m certain that all here who wish the UK well will share my pleasure at this news!”
I would be happy to join him in his celebrations if I knew what his understanding of economic growth is and how it would benefit the majority of us if it turned out to be true. He seems difficult to pin down on this and does not answer my requests for his understanding of economic growth. If it was the growth in social housing I would be celebrating with him. Likewise the growth in the number of doctors, nurses, teachers. I am eager to share his joy. I have asked him if this economic growth is GDP but he does not seem to know.
@ Kempe, re Un vetoes
“Anyway why 30 years? Go back to the early days and it looks very different.”
_____________________
Typical selective use of figures in a vain attempt to pull the wool over our eyes (the Eminences really think that everyone on here is a fool).
You are of course correct – I invite people to check out who was vetoeing what, and how often, in the first 30 years of the UN’s existence (perhaps John Goss could help us here?).
@ ESLO
“Interesting all this suggests that Mary and others have some form of network outside this blog –…”
_________________
I believe they do – which might explain how a lot of them found each other on AlcAnon’s (alias Squonk’s) blog while this one was off the air.
@Uzbek in the UK, actually there is a very simple answer, which is to encourage peaceful negotiated settlements of conflicts, and without the use of force, and without the use of immoral & indiscriminate measures such as the genocidal sanctions that were applied to Iraq for a whole decade. The principle of the sovereignty of National States, as codified in the UN Charter & International Law, with its inherent right of self-determination, is the underlying fundamental lynchpin for everything we profess to believe in, and for keeping the World from turning into an inferno of chaos, so breaking this & undermining this principle under a R2P notion is very dangerous, and in the final account, always counter-productive; dangerous because of the precedent of allowing countries the “right” to interfere in the internal conflicts of other countries, which they will do only in line with their own perceived advantage, because countries are not people, and national interests will always override moral considerations, and counter-productive for conflicts that are mostly sectarian, based on ethnic &/or religious lines, because siding with one side against another, only increases the distrust & further poisons any chance of reconciliation amongst the sides involved, which endures with a deadly lingering legacy for decades, witness the daily carnage in Iraq, and the bitter relationships, that frequently turns violent in Kosovo, between Serbs & Albanians, a power keg ready to explode once again; it’s no coincidence that the Serbs committed most of their war crimes only after the first NATO bombs started to fall, as massacres & genocides tend to mostly occur in the midst of the carnage & inhumanity of war.
I think your remark that most here don’t give “ a toss of people slaughtered here and there”, is incorrect, and actually quite offensive.
John Goss says this à propos my joy at the good news of accelerating UK economic growth (now forecast at 2,4%):
“I am eager to share his joy”
_______________________
Now why don’t I quite believe him? 🙂
PS – Will John also express eagerness to share my joy at the news that unemployment is falling (now down to 7,1%) and if so, should I believe him?
“In another of his discursive comments Habbabkuk…..”
____________________
Discursive as some of Habbabkuk’s comments might be, at least they get their facts right.
To be noted by the author of the above, the same person who – non-discursively, of course – stated that New York Jewish financier Schiff (ca. 1918) financed…..Stalin. 🙂
“Fortunately, some of us have two eyes and we are prepared to use them and recognise that human rights are meant to be universal.”
My minds Eye.
My mind’s eye cornered itself,
Pinned itself on a blank wall,
No longer eager to fathom
The shapeless phantom
That will redefine my flesh bleak
Upon the hour fire mashes it to ash!
This passing hour, my mind’s eye stays paused,
Feeling unmoved in its purchased straitjacket,
Waiting for gravity to pull on watery bags
Under my blue, white, black paralyzed gaze
Yawning my chapped lion mouth to sleep.
Until, a sudden rush of fists smash vertically through.
Crumbling the ceiling
And dividing my room’s scratched, bruised floor,
Inventing a new door,
Leading to the earth’s lea!!!
A silky, glossy, mass of carpeted grass!!!
Incites me to see
Irises to fan out blissfully!!!
While adapting to this new light traveling past, fast!
Heading to my mind’s renewed eye!
Share!
John
While I appreciate the point that increases in GDP do not translate into improved living standards for ordinary working people – and it is still the case that median take home pay in real terms is continuing to fall (demonstrating very clearly that we are most definitely all in it together) – perhaps he might wish to try and find a period when real wages grew and there was not healthy GDP growth. I am pretty certain that he will find that GDP growth is a necessary but not sufficient condition for improvement in real living standards – and for that reason it should be welcomed.
“I think your remark that most here don’t give “ a toss of people slaughtered here and there”,
Could you point to where a toss is being given for the victims of Assad including the millions of refugees.
Actually, the “network outside this blog” is AlcAnon’s Squonk blog, as Habbabkuk already knows, having visited and commented there himself. AlcAnon repeatedly posted comments here linking to squonk.tk and inviting people to read and comment there.
I’ve been publishing my e-mail address on my contact page for years, and I’ve exchanged e-mail addresses with several people here. I’ve even met a few, as you can discover if you look through old comments.
The trolls are exhibiting paranoia now. They think there is some sort of secret network to which they have been ezcluded! If they ever visited the al Hilli thread, which was kept open, they might have noticed this comment. I did. Squonk is a nice blog and full of interest especially for astronomers.
Clark
4 Jan, 2014 – 12:51 am
Tim V, it was good to see you at squonk.tk do drop by again, and thanks for the link about the former French foreign minister.
I seem to remember I went on Squonk when I found a link to Craig speaking at Nottingham Uni. in November as we did not know whether he was alive or dead! Alive thank goodness.
http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/iaps/news/tomlinson-lecture-2013-delivered-by-craig-murray.aspx
In my experience those of us who give a toss are pretty quickly singled out for treatment – why is this?
ESLO, of course people here care about the Syrian civilian population, but different people believe different things. Those who believe that the Syrian conflict is driven mostly by death-squads and terrorists from outside Syria express their care by trying to expose, publicise and oppose this aspect of the conflict.
ESLO, there are ways of forging consensus and agreement. You’d increase my faith in your motives if you’d make such an effort. You, and anyone else, are always welcome to e-mail me to discuss how debate could be improved. Sometimes argument can be more constructive if both public and private approaches are pursued.
Habbabkuk’s spaceship arrived on Squonk just before Christmas as I recall and he emerged to say:
https://squonk.tk/blog/2013/12/19/the-new-yorker-state-of-deception/comment-page-1/#comment-1800
Same old. Same old followed. 32 mentions of ‘Habbabkuk’ including when being addressed.
Pathetic.
There was an extremely unpleasant cartoon by Steve Bell in the Guardian. The Medialens editors wrote:
Email to Guardian’s Steve Bell
Posted by The Editors on January 23, 2014, 1:19 pm
Hi Steve
Regarding this week’s cartoon on Assad’s ‘selfie’ http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cartoon/2014/jan/22/steve-bell-evidence-killing-syria , are you not at all sceptical about the timing, accuracy and provenance of the recent report on Syrian government killing and torture? You’ll know that the report was commissioned by the Qatari government which, according to the FT, has bankrolled the ‘rebels’ to the tune of $3 billion in weaponry and other support http://tinyurl.com/qdmwxrk .
Isn’t it obvious that Qatar timed the release of the report to provide an ideal backdrop for media discussion (cartoons included) of the Geneva II peace conference? Should that not encourage a little caution and scepticism?
Sincerely
David Edwards
~~~
There was an even more disgusting one in Murdoch’s organ by Brookes.
https://twitter.com/BrookesTimes/status/426120769593417729/photo/1
He sounds really pleased with himself. Probably got some brownie points for it.
ESLO, I expect you’d be trusted more widely if you’d stop supporting Habbabkuk, who rarely has anything nice to say to anyone, posts offensive remarks to all and sundry, indulged in sock-puppetry, deliberately starts pointless arguments, and reveals so little about his own political beliefs. If anyone seems to “not give a toss” it’s Habbabkuk, with his constant “Life Is Good” message. Life doesn’t seem to good for the Syrians.
ESLO, here’s an example of how you set yourself up for “treatment”:
This sentence includes the assumption that the millions of refugees are the victims exclusively of Assad. Many people here do not accept that assumption, and find it propagandistic. Do you understand?
Mary, thanks for this snippet from the Financial Times:
No, Assad and the Syrian government certainly cannot be held solely responsible for the slaughter and exodus.
Those tedious entries from Habbabkuk on Squonk ended with his critique of Arthur Scargill. Scargill was right all along when it emerged in the release of cabinet papers, after 30 years, that Thatcher HAD PLANNED to close 70 pits. She wanted it done little by little and subtly so as not to alarm the natives.
http://labourlist.org/2014/01/how-thatcher-lied-to-the-country-during-the-miners-strike/
http://mikesivier.wordpress.com/2014/01/03/the-lies-that-smashed-the-unions-and-destroyed-our-coal-industry/
G4S
http://www.scriptonitedaily.com/2014/01/23/g4s-prison-guard-sleeps-while-prisoner-takes-selfie/
“ESLO, I expect you’d be trusted more widely if you’d stop supporting Habbabkuk, who rarely has anything nice to say to anyone, posts offensive remarks to all and sundry, indulged in sock-puppetry, deliberately starts pointless arguments, and reveals so little about his own political beliefs. If anyone seems to “not give a toss” it’s Habbabkuk, with his constant “Life Is Good” message. Life doesn’t seem to good for the Syrians.”
Unlike dear Clark, of course, who isn’t above the odd vituperative post himself, has been caught using his moderator’s privilege to edit his posts mid-debate, and has never, ever resorted to sock-puppetry. Mr nice guy hippy loves to portray his innocence in every matter.
Correcting my grammar and a typo in my post @ 5.40pm
‘The trolls are exhibiting paranoia now. They think that there is some sort of secret network from which they have been excluded!’
Oh Patience! Where Art Thou?
Perhaps the ‘recovery’ is more smoke and mirrors than reality.
Remember his words when it all goes pear-shaped.
23 January 2014
Cameron: UK’s economic recovery will need ‘patience’
David Cameron: “It’s going to take time and we need to be patient”
Davos 2014
Carney: No immediate rate rise needed
Peston: Bankers back in PM’s tent
Abe urges Asia military restraint
Europe downturn not over, say bosses
Prime Minister David Cameron has told the BBC that a sustained economic recovery must be one which is balanced between “north and south”.
Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, the prime minister said that the economy needs rebalancing.
He said: “In the case of Britain we need to rebalance our economy and make sure it’s a north and south recovery – manufacturing as well as services.”
But Mr Cameron said that economic recovery will take “patience”.
He added that the government needs to deal with “excessive deficits and our broken banking system”, but he was confident that the UK could attract investment and manufacturers.
Housing bubble?
“We are a very welcoming economy,” he said.
When asked if people would see an improvement in their living standards, he said that there have been positive movements in employment. And, he said in the interview with BBC business editor Robert Peston: “We are seeing positive signs on take-home pay.”
When asked if he was concerned by a potential housing bubble or other asset bubble in the UK, Mr Cameron said that the Bank of England was fully independent, and that it was the Bank’s job to “identify” and to “deal with” any asset bubble.
“We should leave it to them, not politicians.”
But he said that a recovery in the housing market was “welcome”.
“You do need a market where people can buy houses, move house, find work, and that drives a lot of activity in the economy,” the prime minister said.
Mr Cameron said the economic revival needed to be balanced, and that “living within our means” was vital to a sustained global recovery.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25868096