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.
ESLO
I remember you asking the same question when you were Larry of St Louis. I believe the ban is still in force. Was it ‘Fuck off ..’ or something similar?
Habbabkuk (La vita è bella!
16 Feb, 2014 – 10:22 am
Mr Scourgie
I see you’re out on day release again.
Don’t you owe me answers to a couple of questions?
Habbabkuk, I’ve been otherwise engaged over recent days and I haven’t caught up with all the comments yet.
What are the “couple of questions I owe an answer to?
Habbabkuk (La vita è bella!
16 Feb, 2014 – 3:41 pm
“When someone – eg Barroso in this instance – points to facts which the Eminences find inconvenient, he’s immediately accused of interfering.”
What FACTS are those Habbabkuk?
While we are on birdlife I had the pure delight of watching 4 young blue tits feeding on the early buds of my greengage tree. Such things can cheer one up no end.
Given I don’t know who Larry from St Louis is or was I doubt it. Why the evasion to a perfectly civil question?
ESLO I agree. The black-headed gulls’ heads are starting to change to summer plumage. We have had a few cormorants and a pair of goosanders, as well as the regular tufted ducks, pochards and mallards. I also saw some tree-sparrows or house-sparrows on my hedge. The daffodils are also poking their green leaves through the loam. It’s good to be alive.
The idea that ESLO is Larry is the most laughable thing I’ve heard on this blog for a while.
JG
Those’d be the black-headed brum-gulls. And the builders-rubble loam.
The girl who they murdered was a child aged 13. Is this the sort that Cameron, Hague and Burt are supporting when they say Assad must go?
Cameron and Hague supplied over 600 Muslim fighters from this country and they are in agreeance with their aims to topple Assad by any means.
To say you are worried whence they return, that you will have to have them monitored and spied upon, means that you William Hague were too stupid to keep them here.
Hague and Cameron are in support of arming the rebels in Jordan refugee camps, they are happy to support more narms being pumped into Syria via Saudio and Quatar, and they are not supporting a cease fire, never on Brahimi’s agenda, so who’s the warmonger here?
Whatever the west tells factions to talk about, it has nothiong to do with peace or the stoppage of fighting, otherwise hague would be talking about a cease fire, not mealy mouth others.
Hague is as bad a warmonger than Blair, another arms supplier worthy of the ICC’s justice.
That’s right Guano, thousands of them. Not sure about the builders-rubble loam.
An agnostic’s view of the democracy cult.
Bangkok post.
http://m.bangkokpost.com/opinion/383718
Democracy, what a great sandwich.
Mr Scourgie
““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.”
____________________
Did I say that it was the May 1949 Plenary meeting that declared Israel an independent state? I think not. I believe I said that it was that meeting which admitted Israel to the UN. Since the UN would not – could not, in fact – admit a non-existent state to membership, it follows that Israel became an independent state before May 1949. So what’s your problem, exactly?
I’m beginning to think that, far from being in denial, you’re just teasing us by pretending not to understand fairly simple chronology. Fair enough, but it’s not very serious of you, is it.
Quite so Nevermind.
We have also been led to believe that the Syrian government were holding people hostage in Homs, especially when listening to Hague.
Categorically, the BBC’s Lyse Doucet confirms that Homs is rebel held.
It was a first sad glimpse of lives lived under siege: the wounded who survived nearly two years under fire in the Old City of Homs; the elderly, bent by anguish and age, in need of medicine, comfort, and care.
Then the buses pulled up, curtains drawn, outside the abandoned white banqueting hall transformed into a makeshift reception centre for people escaping the rebel-held Old City under a temporary truce.
Syria conflict: Emerging from the siege of Homs
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-26171674
She was also speaking on Radio 4 Today this morning.
0750 About 300 men in Syria are still being held for questioning after they left the rebel-held area of Homs last week during an evacuation involving the United Nations. The BBC’s Lyse Doucet reports.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03vd5j3
Mr Scourgie
“perhaps Dieudonne should be treated as innocent until proved guilty.”
______________________
What sort of proof would you need in order to be satisfied?
More on that sect who carried out that garrotting on the 13 year old girl.
Note apostasy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takfiri
Israel and Saudi Arabia’s priorities in Syria
Current developments both inside and outside of Syria have shown that the primary sponsors of the extremist-dominated insurgency – namely, the United States, France, the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Israel and Turkey – aren’t quite ready to throw in the towel.
One may be forgiven for thinking the Obama administration had decided to abandon the policy of regime change following the failed attempt to incite intervention through the chemical weapons casus belli in August. But the harsh reality remains that the above mentioned alliance is continuing its covert military support of the insurgency, in one form or another, in the full knowledge the vast majority of rebels are religious fundamentalists with a sectarian agenda, and vehemently opposed to any form of democracy or political pluralism.
Primarily, the continued support is a product of the American Empires’ overarching strategy of Full Spectrum Dominance over resource-rich and strategically placed regions of the globe via subversion, economic and military aggression; imposed to varying degrees upon any state unwilling to accept full US subordination. This aggressive policy is by no means exclusive to periods of heightened tension or crises; it is a permanent one, brought forward to its violent climax purely through Machiavellian opportunism. In Syria’s case, the Arab uprisings provided the United States and its allies the perfect opening to set in motion the subversive plans they had been working on since at least 2006. The possibility of removing an opposing government that refuses to abide by American/Israeli diktat was simply too good a chance to be missed. Accordingly, and from a very early stage, the US made attempts to facilitate and support the violent fundamentalist elements in Syria, while its media arms were busy conflating them with localised legitimate protesters.
/..
http://notthemsmdotcom.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/israel-and-saudi-arabias-priorities-in-syria/
Mr Scourgie
““When someone – eg Barroso in this instance – points to facts which the Eminences find inconvenient, he’s immediately accused of interfering.”
What FACTS are those Habbabkuk?”
_________________
The facts in question are set out in my post at 16h58 yesterday (it’s on this page). Check it out and come back to me when you’ve done so.
Nevermind I watched the video that Mary posted a link to because I could not believe it. Do not watch it. I wish I hadn’t. It is pure evil. A poor little girl tied up and garrotted in broad daylight by a burly man with burly onlookers who did nothing. What kind of men are these?
And to think Cameron et al are supporting this. War is evil. Warmongers are evil on all sides. I have to take a break.
Scorgie
Re Dieudonne
Resident Dissident and A Node presented plenty of evidence over the weekend – what more do you need. Stop sitting on the fence!
Mr Scourgie
“Habbabkuk, I’ve been otherwise engaged over recent days and I haven’t caught up with all the comments yet.
What are the “couple of questions I owe an answer to?”
_______________________
A gentle suggestion which I hope won’t offend you : would it not be wise of you to catch up with what’s been going on before posting on this, that and the next thing? It would save you from occasional embarassment.
Re the questions you owe me an answer to, they are numerous. Follow my suggestion (see first para) and you’ll find them all by yourself.
Chop chop!
“And to think Cameron et al are supporting this”
Just more crap – what we do know is that you are supporting Assad and his butchery.
Mr Goss and all Eminences
“It’s good to be alive.”
___________________
There you are, you see! Just like I used to say, “La vita è bella, life is good!”.
In appreciation that you’ve come round to my point of view, I think I’ll start writing it again!
Mr Scourgie (in case you’ve already forgotten):
“perhaps Dieudonne should be treated as innocent until proved guilty.”
______________________
What sort of proof would you need in order to be satisfied?
“Chop chop!” I had no idea you meant no harm in that expression. My confusion results from the nerf-bat beatings you employ for disciplinary reasons when you’re whacking with a shit-eating grin murmuring what sounds like….
“Chop, chop’
You do love me after all.
More on the cruel bastards in Shin Bet. Their methods in acquiring agents are well known. Brave and noble Fadi al-Qatshan is no more. He would not betray his brothers and sisters whatever the price.
Spotlight Shines on Palestinian Collaborators
by Jonathan Cook / February 17th, 2014
Fadi al-Qatshan is one of the latest casualties of a war taking place in Gaza’s shadows, as Israel seeks ever more desperate ways to recruit collaborators while Hamas, the Islamic movement ruling Gaza, enforces tough counter-measures.
The 26-year-old graduate died in November. He was killed not by a bullet or in a missile strike, but when a simple piece of medical hardware – an implant in his heart – failed. His repeated requests to the Israeli authorities over more than a year to be allowed out of Gaza for medical treatment had gone unheeded.
According to his family, Israeli security services knew his life was in danger but denied him a permit to attend a medical appointment at a hospital in East Jerusalem. Gaza’s own hospitals, in crisis after years of Israel’s blockade, warned him they could no longer help.
Following a request for a travel permit, his family says al-Qatshan received a call from someone identifying himself as from the Shin Bet, Israel’s intelligence service. Speaking in Arabic, the man said he knew the device in his heart “might explode any minute”. He was urged to “cooperate” in return for a permit.
Al-Qatshan was told he could call the mobile phone number on his screen and arrange an appointment at Erez, the Israeli-controlled crossing that is the only way for ordinary Palestinians to exit Gaza. The agent reportedly rang off with the words, “See you in Tel Aviv”, Israel’s large coastal city. Al-Qatshan sealed his fate by deleting the number.
/..
http://dissidentvoice.org/2014/02/spotlight-shines-on-palestinian-collaborators-2/
On Saturday night I was round Steve’s and I mentioned the Clutha Vaults helicopter crash again for the first time in weeks. It was on my mind because of the recent exchange here, with Anon claiming that helicopters could glide, and the reference I’d found indicating that in the US at least, only single-engine helicopter types needed to demonstrate the ability to glide to a safe landing in order to be certified. I don’t remember the exact course of the conversation. Somewhere near the beginning I part-quoted Fred with “ran out of fuel” and Steve chipped in with “well they’ll never admit that“.
I said I wanted to know what the standing orders for pilots were, whether it was considered acceptable to attempt emergency landing on a flat roofed building. Steve kept virtually shouting that it was a “catastrophic accident” and there was “nothing anyone could have done”. I said that even in an emergency, the pilot continued to hold responsibility for minimising death and injury, right up to the moment of his or her own death, if necessary. Steve didn’t like this at all and repeated earlier disclaimers of anyone holding any responsibility beyond the point that complete control was lost. I said that if I was the pilot, I would want to know exactly what my orders and responsibilities were, right up to the moment that I could no longer affect the outcome, and that I would certainly do my best until my own moment of death; what else would there be left for me to do? Would I really feel better by going “fuck it, I’m going to die, what do I care now?”. I may not have to live with myself, but I’d still have to die with myself.
Steve’s interjection at this point seemed very strange to me. First he said I should think about more important matters. I pointed out that eleven people had died, and that seemed pretty important. Then he said “I don’t see why you have to involve yourself in all this Conspiratorial stuff!”, emphasising and almost spitting the word “conspiratorial”, with the emphasis I’ve added. I then said that I hadn’t mentioned anything about a conspiracy, and that he himself had said that the authorities would never admit to fuel exhaustion, and that such a cover-up, his own suggestion, really would amount to a conspiracy.
I told Steve about the gliding regulations and the situation with single and multiple engine helicopters in the US, and I said that with the increasing use of helicopters, there should probably be a rule that only glidable helicopters should be flown over densely populated areas. Steve said that this sounded like a good idea. I asked him if there was anything “conspiratorial” about my concerns, and he admitted that there was not.
Eslo.
I don’t understand your logic.
Does that make Obama culpable for the acts of aggression of the USA.
Sorry for the Gibberish.’ it’s only most shite here is incomprehensible,
On Sunday night I visited Steve again. At some point I asked him why he regarded my outlook on the Clutha Vaults disaster as “conspiratorial”. He flatly denied he’d ever said such a thing. I pressed him, relating back pieces of our conversation, pointing out they’d never have been said unless the matter of conspiracy had been raised. It was during this exchange that Steve accused me of bullying him.
————-
Now, what am I to think? Steve dismisses my admittedly non-mainstream arguments as “conspiracy theory”. Am I to suspect that he’s a real-life troll, paid by Special Branch or some pilots association to discredit me? Why was he trying to shut me up? Doing so seemed the consistent object of his arguments against me; he just didn’t want to hear any of it.
I wonder if English Knight is calling me Jewish yet.
“Are you a digital crack whore?”
Phil opinions are like arseholes, everybody has one and everybody thinks everybody else’s stink.
Clark, forgive me, but what exactly is your conspiracy theory? That the helicopter ran out of fuel? I’ve checked the Aangirfan site and can’t find anything more hardcore than that, apart from the comments of one or two seriously deranged people. If it did run out of fuel then the authorities would appear to have that base covered, as “problem with the fuel supply” could also mean there was nothing left in the tank!