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.
Habbabkuk (La vita è bella!
12 Feb, 2014 – 8:42 pm
“If, as Mary says, the Gazans and West Bankers are one, then we must ask who – Fatah or Hamas – won the elections overall, ie, in the West Bank and Gaza taken together.”
Habbabkuk, in 2006 the Palestinians went to the polls in the West Bank and Gaza.
In a surprise result Hamas not only triumphed over Fatah for the first time but actually gained a majority of seats creating the possibility of forming a government without coalition partners.
That was the result whether you like it or not.
Mr Scourgie
“King Abdullah’s objective was not to prevent the establishment of a Jewish state but to concentrate his forces in the West Bank and eliminate once and for all any possibility of an independent Palestinian state.”
________________________
Exactly!!
Fred and others please note.
Habbabkuk (La vita è bella!
12 Feb, 2014 – 8:48 pm
“Was the state of Israel officially signed into being by the UN or not?”
No it wasn’t Habbabkuk. I refer to the answer I gave earlier.
Me Scourgie
“Habbabkuk, in 2006 the Palestinians went to the polls in the West Bank and Gaza.
In a surprise result Hamas not only triumphed over Fatah for the first time but actually gained a majority of seats creating the possibility of forming a government without coalition partners.
That was the result whether you like it or not.”
_____________________
OK, I stand corrected and shall read up some more on the sequel!
North Korea is under attack at the UN.
Their operative Michael Kirby is at present enlarging on his report at a ‘news conference’. He is a retired Australian judge.
17 February 2014
UN ‘wants North Korean regime crimes punished’
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-26220304
Talk of Kim Jong-un going to the ICC. Of course none of the operatives of the USUKIsNATO alliance will ever appear in the ICC for their crimes.
Syria has always been on the Israeli/US target list as General Wesley Clark revealed. Nothing has changed. The aim is world domination by the US and its allies. Here is the latest.
http://nsnbc.me/2014/02/17/campaign-against-syria-planned-as-terrorists-receive-advanced-weapons/
“Bashar Jaafari, the current Permanent Representative of the Syrian Arab Republic to the UN announced that there are destructive activities blocking a political solution in Geneva II. Jaafari, who also announced that the US, Saudi and French armies are making preparations in Northern Syria for a military intervention, said, “the United States was clear through the comments of its President Barack Obama, State Secretary John Kerry, and Robert Ford that it wanted to disrupt the meeting and was not pursuing a peaceful political solution; rather, it wants to pressure the Syrian government.”
Would that be acceptable if it was, say, China creating military regime change in Israel, which also has a poor human rights’ record?
My friend is called Steve and I’ve known him for over twenty years. The specific problem between us to which I referred earlier started some months back when I expressed my concern regarding the Clutha Vaults helicopter disaster. It seemed to me that certain important questions were not being asked. It was reported in the UK Telegraph that:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/10487616/Glasgow-helicopter-crash-bravery-of-police-officers-who-were-killed.html
My view was that if that was the case, the deaths of the people in the bar must be regarded as manslaughter. This view has proven utterly unpopular with everyone I’ve expressed it to. My understanding of the legal term “manslaughter” may be wrong, but no one who has criticised my position has explored that with me. Instead, they’ve simply told me that I’m being offensive or that I should stop thinking about the matter in such terms. I seem to have become guilty of thoughtcrime. At the very least they’ve told me that I shouldn’t express such a view. In a personal sense, my freedom to speak has been opposed.
I have much more to write about this, but I’m going to post this without reading others’ comments on the thread, because I’d like to make a start but I’m too scared of the animosity which is likely being traded between others or being directed at myself.
Robert Fisk on US drone attacks on Pakistan.
The world cannot turn a blind eye to America’s drone attacks in Pakistan
Why was Karim Khan prevented from speaking out against drone warfare?
By Robert Fisk
Karim Khan is a lucky man. When you’re picked up by 20 armed thugs, some in police uniform – aka the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) – you can be “disappeared” forever. A mass grave in Balochistan, in the south-west of the country, has just been found, filled with the “missing” from previous arrests. But eight days after he was lifted and – by his own testimony, that of his lawyer Shasad Akbar and the marks still visible on his body – tortured, Mr Khan is back at his Pakistani home. His crime: complaining about US drone attacks – American missiles fired by pilotless aircraft – on civilians inside Pakistan in President Obama’s Strangelove-style operation against al-Qa’ida.
There are, as the cops would say, several facts “pertaining” to Mr Khan’s kidnapping. Firstly, his son Hafiz Zaenullah, his brother Asif Iqbal and another man – a stonemason called Khaliq Dad – were killed by a drone attack on Mr Khan’s home in December 2009. Secondly, he had filed a legal case in Pakistan against the American drone strikes, arguing that they constituted murder under domestic law. And thirdly – perhaps Mr Khan’s most serious crime – he was about to leave for Brussels to address European Union parliamentarians on the dangers of American drone strikes in Pakistan.
/..
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article37663.htm
Habbabkuk (La vita è bella!
12 Feb, 2014 – 9:33 pm
“I would furthermore refer you to the vote of the 207th Plenary Meeting of the UN General Assembly (11.05.1949) which admitted Israel as a member of the UN.”
Habbabkuk, Ben-Gurion and his Zionist collective unilaterally declared an independent state a year before the Plenary meeting you mention.
Per Resident Dissident above
“In the aftermath of the 1948 war, and conditional on Israel’s acceptance and implementation of resolutions 181 and 194, the UN General Assembly voted, with the May 11, 1949 Resolution 273 (III), to admit Israel to UN membership.
and so the State of Israel was accepted by International Law – you may not like it but those are the facts.”
Is he wrong or is DS just in denial.
Given that neither blanket bombing or more targeted drone attacks are not seen as acceptable ways of dealing with the Taliban – perhaps some of the Eminences might wish to suggest how the Taliban should be dealt with – love bombed?
Clark, I come in peace and sympathy. I can understand your argument perfectly well based on the Telegraph report of 3rd December. But things have moved on, if I recall, and it is said that the helicopter suffered engine failure, in which case, if true, and I have no evidence to the contrary, it is not fair to blame the pilot for manslaughter. If as the report said they were trying to land and there was a catastrophic crash then that might be construed as manslaughter due to pilot error. As it stands I think I would value my friendship with others against a legal argument that does not directly affect me. 🙂
Resident Dissident
12 Feb, 2014 – 9:56 pm
“…although Hamas may have been democratically elected back in 2006 its mandate ran out in 2010…”
ResDis, Hamas was never allowed to exercise its mandate from 2006.
That democratic election was cancelled by “democratic” western powers.
President Abbas was elected to serve until January 3rd 2009. He is still there.
Obviously the Palestinians cannot be trusted with democratic rights.
There are no known nuclear weapons in the Middle East North and East Africa except those that Israel has. Why then does the US continue to deploy nuclear-weapon carrying vessels in various oceans. Are they trying to escalate WWIII into a nuclear war because the economy is on its last legs and they have wasted taxpayers’ money in an overkill of nuclear weaponry?
http://nsnbc.me/2014/02/17/us-missile-shield-russian-bear-sleeping-one-eye-open/
Scorgie
Perhaps some of us don’t carry a candle for either Fateh or Hamas – although you clearly appear to carry one for Hamas. It is quite clear that between them they have derived the Palestinians of democracy for nearly 4 years and have not sought to renew their mandate in the parts of Palestine that they do control.
Habbabkuk (La vita è bella!
13 Feb, 2014 – 10:14 am
“Fred, are you deliberately misunderstanding or are you just obtuse?
Last elections : 2006
Now : 2014
That’s 8 years ago.
Where’s the democracy?”
It was cancelled Habbabkuk by the western “democracies” and Israel.
There was democracy in 2006 now there isn’t.
Mary:
‘Warning. Great danger lies ahead’. Above re. Syria.
You know the joke about the Englishman in India? He asks to see the restaurant kitchen.
‘Why, it’s very clean, no flies at all in here’
‘Yes, that’s because at this particular time of day they are not in here’
‘Where are they then?’
‘ In the toilet’.
That’s the current situation of Islam in the UK. The UK Muslims hate the horrible British colonials who were sent to India, and completely ignoring the fact that the English people are decent and law-abiding, they will do anything to grasp power in the UK by political collusion with the UK intelligence services.
The flies that are in Syria are the ones that live here. What you are scared of over there is already in place under your noses here. Pure un-adulterated racsim being fed by same-old same-old UK Divide and Rule from yesteryear.
Nil carborundum, forget about nil carbon
Scorgie and others
Do you support the Hamas Covenant/Charter
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp
“It was cancelled Habbabkuk by the western “democracies” and Israel.”
Crap
Who are the US drones murdering? The political opponents of the New World Order? No, they are murdering the people who, like the people of Syria, want Islam to be clean, worshipful and relevant to daily life. All of the problems in the Muslim world from the beginning until the Day of Judgement are caused by political Muslims selling their brothers and Sisters for thamanan qaleelah/ a miserable gain. i.e. worldly power.
Guano
So how would you deal with political Muslims like the Taleban?
Habbabkuk (La vita è bella!
13 Feb, 2014 – 11:01 am
“Can anyone confirm that this is so? I believe you have to give your details when purchasing a television but that is because of the licence fee. But other electronic stuff – are you sure? It has not been my experience (mobile phone, TV set-top for digital TV etc).”
I bought two mobile phones as presents recently each from a different supplier and both pay-as-you-go. My name and address details were required even though I was paying cash.
Some background: my friend Steve is technically competent with computers, but he does not use the Internet as a source for news on current affairs. He considers himself progressive and politically aware, but his news sources are all what I’d refer to as “the corporate media”. His predominant choices seems to be The Guardian (in newsprint), and to a lesser degree The Independent in both its full and compact formats (also in newsprint). He also watches BBC TV, though more for drama, documentary, and current affairs commentary such as Question Time rather than daily news bulletins.
I’m pretty sure that he basically never visits this blog. I’ve told him of my involvement and my former work “moderating” (or rather failing to do so). I think he’s looked in once or twice, and he’s listened to the Murder in Samarkand radio drama. I’ve asked him if he’s ever submitted a comment here and he says that he hasn’t*, but of course I couldn’t prove that one way or another unless I were to interfere with his computer software, which I’ve had ample opportunities to do, but which I wouldn’t on principle, and for which I lack the technical expertise anyway (though of course I could soon discover suitable techniques). But you readers only have my word for this, of course.
* – this highlights a personal difficulty I suffer that derives from the anonymous nature of discussion here. I never know if someone I’m debating with face-to-face is in fact also a contributor at this site, possibly one I’ve argued with. They would know who I am, of course, as I comment under my own name and I link to contact and identifying details. I sometimes get a bit paranoid about this.
I’m still commenting “blind”. I’ll say when I start reading again, at which point I’ll have a lot of catching up to do.
ESLO
Extremely stupid lazy old man
Clark, like you I write under my own name. I think people who use pseudonyms have the opportunity to say anything and hide behind a facade. I have a friend called Steve who used to live in the Midlands but now lives down South, who sounds a bit like your friend. That would be a coincidence. I should not worry about your friends commenting against you under a false name. If they are real friends they will argue to your face under their own names. Like you would not tamper with your friend’s computer data, your friend would not betray your trust by commenting anonymously.
Guano
new world order = new world chaos.
Is it natures way?
I am convinced that Sex is corrupting our minds.
Take the sex out of a relationship and we have friendship.
So much emphasis is put on sex to the detriment of surer values.
Guano
Quite clearly my polite question is beyond you, or you don’t want to reveal the answer.
Resident Dissident
15 Feb, 2014 – 11:27 am
Doug Scorgie
“Perhaps you might care to answer my question – do you consider Dieudonne to be an anti-Semite (dictionary definition)? yes or no will suffice.”
ResDis yes or no cannot suffice because I don’t know Dieudonne any more than you do.
Bearing in mind the knee-jerk reactions of Zionist supporters to any criticism of Israel; often to a point of hysteria, perhaps Dieudonne should be treated as innocent until proved guilty.
Jay
Yesterday we found a dead Canada Goose outside the mosque with no visible damage. No manna or quails.
Wiki:
Canada Geese fly in a distinctive V-shaped flight formation, with an altitude of 1 km (3,000 feet) for migration flight. The maximum flight ceiling of Canada Geese is unknown, but they have been reported at 9 km (29,000 feet).[20]
I’ll check the CCTV to see what happened.