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.
Mr Scourgie
“Isn’t that the ploy used by the western intelligence services and their governments?”
___________________
No.
Resident Dissident 17 Feb, 2014 – 10:26 pm
“Both I and A node presented evidence on Dieudonne at the weekend – there should be more than enough for you to form an opinion as to whether or not he is an anti-Semite.”
Which do you think is the most important question:
(1) Is Dieudonne an anti-Semite
(2) Do Zionists control France?
Mr Scourgie
“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?”
_____________________
No. Facts are facts, Mr Scourgie.
DonnyDarko
I think you’ve misunderstood me. I agree about girls’ education. The whole thing was screwed up and the government had to find a justification for the lives lost for consumption back home. If you can explain to me the economics of money spent and possible benefits to the UK from a new pipeline I would be much obliged.
“They were there before we invaded because they are residents”
The Taleban is a political/religious movement not a people – and it spread to Afgahanistan from Pakistan – and its political/religious beliefs are quite different from what existed previously in Afghanistan.
Foreign interference in Afghanistan comes in many forms I’m afraid – not just the ones the habitual readers of this blog don’t like.
Sometimes I need a challenge. When faced with boredom I like to drop a heavy weight on one of my big toes as a handicap. When the shooting pain reaches home the eyes fill with tears, then I am refreshed enough to bring new ideas to my arguments. I will ask all of you to ignore the pool of blood and my grimace during the process of re-booting my brain. It’s the least you can do for me.
A node
Happy to answer both (1) Yes 2)No ) so that you don’t have to make that difficult and diversionary decision.
ESLO
17 Feb, 2014 – 3:34 pm
“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.”
I spotted a pair of tits while looking out of my bedroom window this morning.
My wife said they were great tits and I had to agree!
Thanks for providing such a revealing demonstration of the quality of argument available on your side of the credibility divide.
.
Oh, er …. well, let’s not dwell on your implied anti-Pakistani racism
Unfortunately for your point, the American diplomat who the Pakistani diplomat said made the comment has confirmed he said it.
Just out of interest, what sort of things do you normally expect to come out of an American diplomat’s arse?
Thanks for confirming the revealing demonstration of the quality of argument available on your side of the credibility divide.
A node
Are you saying that we can ignore someones racism/anti-Semitism provided that they support the Zionist cause? Because that is certainly how you behave.
“Why do you think it would have been better if Transjordan annexed the west bank?”
______________________
A splendid example of a variant on the “Scourgie Gambit”. Ie, assert that I said exactly the opposite to what I did actually say.
I think it would have been better if Jordan had helped set up a Palestinian state on the West Bank, rather than occupying the West Bank and putting it under “administration” until it was kicked out in 1967.
Yes, I’m afraid that fellow Arabs share a lot of the blame – indeed, are to blame right from the beginning – for there not being a Palestinian state today.
Doug
I thing you will find that she said “you are a great tit”. Give my regards to the poor woman.
Resident Dissident 17 Feb, 2014 – 10:52 pm
Just to be clear, you are saying that you think it’s more important to know whether Dieudonne is anti-Semitic than whether France is controlled by Zionists. Yes?
And if so, would you still say that if you were French?
Craig on the Afghan oil pipeline:
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2009/11/the_sinister_di/
Mr Scourgie
“I repeat Israel unilaterally declared its independence a year before those resolutions.”
________________________
Yes, and I repeat that its declaration of statehood followed on from another UN Resolution, which has already been referred to further up on this thread. Scroll back and you will find it.
Chop chop!
Habbabkuk (La vita è bella!
17 Feb, 2014 – 4:43 pm
Mr Scourgie
“perhaps Dieudonne should be treated as innocent until proved guilty.”
“What sort of proof would you need in order to be satisfied?”
I’m not defending Dieudonne I am only criticising the Zionist position that he is guilty until proved innocent.
Mr Scourgie
““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?”
Blanket bombing and targeted assassinations are war crimes ESLO; nuf said?”
______________________
No, you haven’t said enough – you haven’t answer ESLO’s question. Will you now do so? Your suggestions, please!
Up to this point I’ve been posting my comments without reading the thread. I’m now going to go back and start reading and catch up. However, I see by the page changes that there have been hundreds of comments, so I expect I’ll be a while getting through them; I might not comment again before tomorrow morning.
Best wishes and Peace.
Resident Dissident
17 Feb, 2014 – 10:55 pm
No, I’m saying that I do not attach the same importance to anti-Semitism as you do. I deplore all racism and I don’t consider anti-Semitism to be a special case. As we both agree, it is sometimes used by some people to prevent discussion about Israeli or Zionist affairs. We have to guard against that.
Mr Scourgie
“If it wasn’t cancelled by the western “democracies” and Israel what happened?”
______________________________
What probably happened is that, in typical Arab fashion, the two parties started squabbling among themselves. As Abba Eban apparently once said : the Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
But do correct me I’m labouring under a misapprehension.
Guano. 9 59pmfaith
What concerns me is how we respond when it does, whether by accident or design.
Ask Dad? I’m trying to learn to behave with compassion so I’ll have to pass on that one.
As for God, well I reckon, if She exists at all She wants us to learn for ourselves.
Whatever our faith or lack of , my own belief is that if our grandchildren are to inherit a planet worth living on then it’s up to our generation to take a stand for each other’s, and the biosphere’s wellbeing.
…
Clark.
I can’t remember who said the opposite of conformity is not cowardice but conformity. It might leave you lonely among a species terrified of ostracism but at least you keep your self-respect.
What I respect about you and most other contributers here is the clear sense that the future is, in many respects, our responsibility.
…
A Node. 10 23pm
Thanks. I wanted to shout all that.
“Oh, er …. well, let’s not dwell on your implied anti-Pakistani racism”
Really pathetic, A Node. I don’t hold any racist attitudes towards Pakistanis. Clearly just to say that a Pakistani diplomat may have been talking out of his arse is enough for you to pull the race card.
“Unfortunately for your point, the American diplomat who the Pakistani diplomat said made the comment has confirmed he said it.”
He didn’t say he said it. He said it may have been said at some do. Hardly amounts to a multi-trillion dollar international conspiracy to topple the Taliban in order to build a pipeline, does it?
“Just out of interest, what sort of things do you normally expect to come out of an American diplomat’s arse?”
Same sort of crap, only ten times larger. Am I waythist?
testing 17 Feb, 2014 – 11:01 pm
Thanks for that link, testing.
Are you paying attention, Anon?
Habbabkuk (La vita è bella!
17 Feb, 2014 – 4:55 pm
“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!
Habbabkuk if you have any questions to ask me please do so publicly on this blog. I have been otherwise engaged for the last week and I don’t keep meticulous records of what I have previously posted (unlike you and others).
What are your questions?
Sorry. I lost the beginning of that last post. Here it is…
Guano. 9 59pm
Why shouldn’t shit happen?
What concerns me is how we respond when it does, whether by accident or design.
Mr Scourgie
“I spotted a pair of tits while looking out of my bedroom window this morning.
My wife said they were great tits and I had to agree!”
_____________________
More and more is being revealed – in this instance, that your mornings are spent at your window looking at your wife who, for whatever reason, is standing in the garden (or perhaps in your driveway).
Curious! 🙂
A message from the SU: “I can’t remember who said the opposite of conformity is not cowardice but conformity.”
I recall being offered the very sage advice as a teenage rebel: “Rebels always rebel in absolute conformity”.
Mr Scourgie
“I’m not defending Dieudonne”
________________
No, of course you aren’t 🙂
anon
There’s that straw man again. No body but you and your mates claims that it’s ALL about Afghanistan. Afghanistan is just one of the 10?/15?/20? …. countries that the US has attacked since 911. Can you say “global strategy”.
In case you missed Testing’s link, here’s what Craig says about it:
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2009/11/the_sinister_di/“
PS Craig was a British diplomat.
“Fred, Afghanistan was invaded to dismantle al-Qaeda and remove the Taliban from power. Total failure, I agree, but those were the objectives. You don’t squander trillions to build a pipeline.”
Do you spend trillions to capture one man?
Would that be the same Al Qaeda America is supplying arms to in Syria?
The invasion of Afghanistan started on 7th October 2001, I don’t believe much of the planning hadn’t been done prior to 11th September.
Every invasion of Afghanistan has been to control the trade route to south Asia, this one was no different. TAPI is being built as we speak.