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.
“and so the State of Israel was accepted by International Law”
I keep asking which law this is, nobody has been able to answer.
“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?”
Why would we have to deal with them at all? Apart from some giant corporation wanting to build oil and gas pipelines that is.
They are no threat to us or the rest of the world, they seem to be more popular in Afghanistan than we are
Fred
““and so the State of Israel was accepted by International Law”
I keep asking which law this is, nobody has been able to answer.”
______________________
It’s been explained several times already. What is it that you don’t understand, Fred?
Apart from that, Israel EXISTS, whether you like it or not. So get used to it.
At each turn, Steve’s attitude seemed to be that I should not become involved with the Clutha Vaults helicopter disaster. Either it isn’t important, or I’m obsessed with conspiracies, or I should leave it to the experts and the authorities. He also claimed that I was too “emotionally involved”. “Hands Off!” seemed to be his message to me.
And yet he doesn’t really trust those authorities himself – “if it ran out of fuel, they’ll never admit that”.
I pointed out to him that this is what it means to live in a democracy. I can discover problems, debate them freely (if my peers will permit me), and I can write to the authorities or campaign on blogs about the issues that I consider important.
The conversation was useful to me although I found Steve’s attitude towards me emotionally harrowing. It helped me to clarify my thinking. I came to two conclusions: there should be a rule that only helicopters that can land safely without power should be used over urban and suburban areas, and if the standing orders for pilots don’t already specify that the safety of people on the ground must be considered when attempting emergency landing, they should be revised such that they do.
Why would we have to deal with them (ie, the Taliban) at all?
_______________
Inter alia, to keep berks like you safe. 🙂
Fred, you need to accept that Israel exists and it isn’t going anywhere. A large part of its territory was gained in conquest and much of it in response to attempts to conquer it. You should move on and look for a peaceful solution that allows for Israel’s existence as well as the Palestinians’. It really is a tiny slither of land in a vast Muslim region where Jews and Christians are relegated to third-class status, if they are allowed to exist at all. Worst of all, Israel’s neighbours couldn’t give a fig for the Palestinians except as an excuse to kick the Jews.
There’s been a lot on the media about the Archbishop of Westminster’s claim that Britain’s social security net has been torn up (or is being torn up). Others dispute this and point to the fact that expenditure on working-age social security benefits are running at £ 80 billion annually.
Can anyone give me the breakdown of current expenditure as between the big categories of govt.spending?
Thanks
“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?”
Psychopaths. Same sort of people who killed Jews in Germany, bombed Dresden, bombed Hiroshima bombed the St Davids Hotel.
The real us and them in this world is not Jew and Arab, Socialist and Capitalist or Christian and Muslim. It’s good people and psychopaths.
Excellent post above on Palestine/Israel, Anon. Every sentence spot on.
“…bombed the St Davids Hotel.”
_______________
I take it you’re referring to the King David Hotel?
Clark: Are you sure your mate isn’t slightly more given to drink etc. than he might be letting on? I would put it more down to someone not really paying attention to what they’re saying, and being a bit silly all round, instead of some paid stooge.
About the helicopter – one of my first thoughts was what were the filth doing flying around at night there in the first place? Sight-seeing? Traffic control? If there was any good reason for their buzzing around at great taxpayer expense, I haven’t heard it yet.
If the sky is full of filth just larking around for their jollies, it’s not surprising there will be an unscheduled hard landing once in a while. Notice how often they crash cars themselves, or cause accidents – they’re certainly not the brightest or most careful, notwithstanding all their bragging about “special training”.
In my part of the country there are nothing but cutbacks, yet police helicopters are free to cruise around with no expense spared. If there were some good justification for this enormous cost I’m sure it would be waved at us triumphantly on a regular basis.
My incident with Steve has made me question the whole matter of casual observation of current affairs. It seems that people like Steve (and my experience is that such people constitute the majority) disapprove of real, thinking involvement in matters covered by “the news”. I’m supposed to just accept what’s written, and move on without thinking.
The printed newspaper format is ideal for Steve’s approach. Looking at his Guardian, I became severely frustrated. There’s no search function, no links for checking evidence, no nearby sources of independent verification, no quick way to add my own comments or challenge what is written. The newspaper publishers have decided for me what is important and what I should consider reading; they even indicate the relative importance by how far from the front page they place the articles and how large each headline is printed.
Is such a fixed format, and the passive attitude it essentially enforces, really a healthy thing in a democracy? Am I really just supposed to browse my newspaper, and occasionally vote on the basis of whatever attitudes it has induced in my mind?
“It’s been explained several times already. What is it that you don’t understand, Fred?”
Which law? Nobody has cited the law they refer to. If you claim the authority of international law then you should be able to cte the law.
Habbabkuk (La vita è bella!
16 Feb, 2014 – 11:31 pm
Doug Scorgie said:
Israel unilaterally declared independence on 14th May 1948. Just to put things straight: the UN did not establish Israel.
“The above is a fine example of the “Scourgie Gambit”, more vulgarly known as splitting hairs.”
Not splitting hairs Habbabkuk; only dispelling the myth that the UN created the state of Israel.
It did not as you full well know.
The UN General Assembly admitted the State of Israel to the UN in 1949 one year AFTER Israel was “created”.
Fred, there are a whole load of psychopaths in western governments. I could not agree more with your comment about it being us versus psychopaths.
I’ve signed this but I wonder whether it is worth it. Anything between 1 and 2 million people marched on Hyde Park in protest against Blair’s planned war in Iraq. But the psychopath ignored us. There is no democracy. W just have elected dictators. It’s like a production line. Bring on another one. I have no faith in Ed Miliband, David Cameron, Clegg. People have got to force a change or we will be stuck with these Neocon shits for the rest of our lives.
I like the idea of Left Unity because there is not, as far as I know, any Zionist money behind it yet. It’s a bit like the Labour Party in the days of Keir Hardie. It is the initiative of Ken Loach who wrote wrote and produced that very powerful documentary about homelessness called “Cathy Come Home”. Some people keep their moral integrity!
The impression I get is that my desire to involve myself, to consider news actively rather than passively, makes most “normal”, non-Internet people feel threatened. I’m supposed to treat news media pretty much as I would entertainment. By reading it I’ll have an acceptable claim to being “informed”, but going deeper is essentially discouraged…
…discouraged by my peers, note. Not by some Big Brother figure.
Since the terms “eminences” and “trolls” have been in use, I suppose I may as well use them too, as much as it pains me. I’ve already posted my lesson to “the eminences”. It’s “the trolls” who seem to want me to become passive about my news consumption. It seems that they want me to accept what I’m fed and not complain, and certainly not try cooking for myself.
@Clark
Did you consider the possibility maybe you are wrong.
You are entitled to your opinion but so s everyone else, just as they are entitled to decide for themselves what they consider important. The way to peace in the world is to respect other people’s beliefs not try to impose your beliefs on them.
We can all state our case, try to convince others, debate a subject provided the other party is a willing participant. To continue to push the matter after the other party has expressed their unwillingness to do so is harassment, yes bullying.
Clark : “My incident with Steve has made me question the whole matter of casual observation of current affairs.”
Well, sure. Most people aren’t interested in current affairs beyond the most trivial aspects of “news” – that’s why the most popular newspapers by a very long way are full of gossip, scandal and “celebrity” coverage. Hey, look at the lifestyles of the rich (at least, those who also don’t mind being famous), and we’ll sell you that for entertainment.
Everything’s in place – go about your small affairs, and watch X-Factor, stars-in-their-eyes or whatever, and be frightened of crime – especially terrorists.
Anyone who deviates from that is basically calling his correspondent on his lack of knowledge, idle acceptance, and then you might not be the Good German we’re all supposed to be these days.
My wife got dismissively accused of “thinking too much” by wanting to widen discussion beyond whatever crap was on the TV, and learned to pipe it down, even among qualified medical staff. I find it hard to garner interest among some mates too – they like to complain about how things are difficult, the cost of living and so on, but rather fail to understand it’s because of a lack of social justice, and just why that might be case.
Habbabkuk (La vita è bella!
16 Feb, 2014 – 4:58 pm
Habbabkuk, regarding Mr Barroso “telling it as it is.”
What you refer to as fact is mere conjecture.
You then go on to say:
“PS – I like the non-sequitur about democracy at the end of yours. So very Mr Scourgie”
I refer to my post (Doug Scorgie 16 Feb, 2014 – 12:52 pm) so that others, if they wish, can see that there was no non-sequitur about democracy in my posting.
You have no idea what a non-sequitur is anyway Habbabkuk, as I have pointed out to you on numerous occasions in the past, stop making a fool of yourself.
“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?”
Since you mention “blanket bombing” …..
The US energy company Unocal was in negotiations with the Taliban in 2000 and 2001 for permission to build a gas pipeline through Afghanistan. At first things were going well, but when eventually the Taliban threatened to pull out of the talks, they were given an ultimatum ….
http://www.fourwinds10.net/siterun_data/government/fraud/911_attack/news.php?q=1216405258
A few weeks later, 911 ‘happened’, the US invaded Afghanistan and eventually installed Hamid Karzai as president. And what was
Karzai’s previous job before becomng president of Afghanistan? Why he worked for Unocal.
Habbabkuk (La vita è bella!
16 Feb, 2014 – 5:03 pm
Habbabkuk says:
“And now a question to you : do you believe that some people, including some on this blog, criticise Zionists as a cover for their anti-semitism?”
A stupid question, even by your standards Habbabkuk.
You could as well ask: do you believe that some people, including some on this blog, make ant-Semitic remarks as a cover for their support of Zionism.
By the way I am not being picky but you frequently use the term anti-Semitism with a lower case s, can you explain that?
It is akin to using the word Jewish with a lower case j.
“Habbabkuk, regarding Mr Barroso “telling it as it is.”
What you refer to as fact is mere conjecture.”
___________________-
Then we must agree to differ, Mr Scourgie. But, without wishing to offend you, I’ d prefer to believe Barroso and the Commission’s Legal Service rather than you.
Mr Scourgie
“A stupid question, even by your standards Habbabkuk.”
______________________
I deduce from the above that you are unwilling and/or unable to answer it.
~~~~~~~~~~
“You could as well ask: do you believe that some people, including some on this blog, make ant-Semitic remarks as a cover for their support of Zionism.”
_______________________
But I didn’t. So why don’t you just answer the question I did ask?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“By the way I am not being picky but you frequently use the term anti-Semitism with a lower case s, can you explain that?”
____________________
Certainly. It is meant to give you the opportunity of asking irrelevant questions.
*************************
La vita è bella, life is good!
Resident Dissident
16 Feb, 2014 – 8:28 pm
“The old guilt by association ploy…”
Isn’t that the ploy used by the western intelligence services and their governments?
“Accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs.”
More bollocks from A Node.
“Pipe dreamers”
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/feb/29/dudewheresthepipeline1
“Niaz Naik and the Carpet of Bombs”
http://www.911myths.com/html/niaz_naik_and_the_carpet_of_bo.html
“The Conspiracy Theory That Wouldn’t Die”
http://www.salon.com/2002/08/16/forbidden_truth/
The torture shame that is the US, UK, Poland, Romania and other European countries involved in extraordinary rendition while being questioned in European courts is hampered by the power-mongers who are currently breaking international law with extra-judicial drone strikes.
http://onesmallwindow.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/europe-takes-one-step-forward-and-two-steps-back-on-torture-collusion/
The above link is the sickness of the United States above a decade ago, but there have been countless acts of international torture, wrongful imprisonment and extra-judicial killing since. These crimes must not be left unpunished.
Will Node opt for the famous Dross Gambit? “What? Not me, Guv, I woz only quoting it.”
Resident Dissident
16 Feb, 2014 – 8:50 pm
“Barroso told Andrew Marr an independent Scotland would have to reapply for membership and get the approval of all current member states.”
“Sounds like a fact to me – even though I do live in a parallel universe.”
I don’t know where you live ResDis, perhaps its Wonderland?
Someone (who you agree with) gives an opinion and it is a FACT to you.
Someone gives an opinion you don’t like and that would be a LIE. No?
Clark
It is not just posh people like Nick Clegg who come from generations of double, treble, multi-level political duplicity. They are multi-faceted lie-factories, and they are not encountered by chance! You will eventually be able to trace the set-up coincidences that led to this ‘extemporary’ exchange. People have been made pregnant by underground police officers moling among climate change activists. Have you checked if you are pregnant? That would be my first priority if I was in your shoes.
Step 2. 100% of all this exchange is 100% bollocks, including commas and fullstops and trips to the lavatory. Maybe his computer brain needed a cool-down. Or a new injection of speed?
After you have rid your mind of the idea that it was anything other than first grade blarney/blag/blackmail, and definitely a team-supported effor, you will get a series of after shocks in which you will be informed by coincidental third parties of the likeliness of Steve being genuine, they have colleague back-up!!!
Events like this are quite common for Muslims, such as being introduced to Muslim converts because you will so much in common, who are in fact agents of government bollocks. If you believe in social justice, you are never further than 3 metres from a rat!!!
As to helicopters it is possible to operate them without a pilot and stop them without a pilot wherever you want them dropped.
Resident Dissident
16 Feb, 2014 – 9:38 pm
“…and so the State of Israel was accepted by International Law – you may not like it but those are the facts.”
The state of Israel was not accepted by the UN as “a Jewish” state only as a state for all its citizens.