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
“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).”
_________________
Perhaps you should. It would save you much embarrassment and also soap money (to clean the egg off your face).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“What are your questions?”
________________
A bit rich coming from someone who once said he “couldn’t be arsed” to read a reference I had supplied in reply to a request from him. Wake up and pay more attention!
A Node, please don’t change the subject. Can you give me a cost/benefits analysis of the Afghan War and potential UK profit from a pipeline?
Nonsense. The idea of ‘rebel’ already places such into a minority. When rebellion goes mainstream it becomes conformity.
Eg; Many youngsters see tattoos as a statement of personal exceptionalism and non-conformity.
After a few decades getting a ‘Tat’ makes a sound more like popular media, than an outlaw biker. Training wheels on a Chopper would be non-conformist, rather than dirty levis and tattoos, even amongst any outgroups, who disdain normative behaviors.
Fred writes:
““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?”
___
Deary me. Talk about missing the point!
“Fred, forgive me if I’m wrong, but are not respect for human rights, freedom and a functioning democracy some of the basic requirements for international recognition of a state?”
Certainly not.
Fred
“Every invasion of Afghanistan has been to control the trade route to south Asia, this one was no different.”
__________________
Would you include the Soviet invasion under that rubric?
And now sit tight and repeat after me : “trade with south Asia is no longer carried out by camel, it is carried out by large freighter vessels and by air.”.
Got it, chumpus maximus?
‘Cost benefit analysis…’ Har !
Whip up a nice Christmas Pudding for us all, woncha’!
Anon
thanks you for conceding defeat on this issue.
Well, tonight has been a veritable Festival of Laughs from the Eminent trolls, an Orgy of Idiocy. Thanks, guys!
If Dad is laughing at work, he’s gonna sleep soundly. Tell you about tonight’s mischief on the Morrow.
The beatings will continue until morale improves.
“Face palm – it has already been explained to you many many times – since I very much doubt that you will be standing up in court any time now challenging the right of Israel to exist in international law (or Fred for that matter) might you give everyone a rest – as far as I am concerned you can and probably do believe in Father Christmas, the Tooth Fairy and the Bogeyman.”
I’ve asked for someone to tell me the law you keep referring to, no one has.
So tell me this. What is the legal definition of a state in international law?
Anon. 11:24 pm
“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”.
I’d love to know what motivates you to post here. Do you think youre contributions provide a role model for grown-up behaviour?
Why should I accept your words when they are so often clearly intended simply to disrupt, divert and upset?
Do you really believe that those who question official narratives are inevitably wrong or are you just frightened of what might happen when enough people see what is going on behind the smokescreen. All those fine words about democracy and human rights that our leaders trot out every time they want to violently assert control, whether in Syria, Ukraine, Venezuala or anywhere else that is not bowing down to the demands of morally and financially bankrupt Western regimes.
I’d love to hear a considered, rational and polite reply.
This album changed my mind about Jazz/rock fusion. It IS possible.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCtSa0exAH0
Habbabkuk
“And now sit tight and repeat after me : “trade with south Asia is no longer carried out by camel, it is carried out by large freighter vessels and by air.”.
Thanks for a good laugh before bed. I shall picture camels laden with merchandise on the Silk Road through Kandahar…
“Anon thanks you for conceding defeat on this issue.”
He thanks you indeed!
Sofia 11:15pm
I’m all for exposing government wrongdoing but I believe most of what you people come up with is crap. Good night!
“And now sit tight and repeat after me : “trade with south Asia is no longer carried out by camel, it is carried out by large freighter vessels and by air.”.”
And by pipeline.
Maybe you should read this:
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/intlrel/hfa48119.000/hfa48119_0.HTM
“I’m all for exposing government wrongdoing but I believe most of what you people come up with is crap. Good night!”
So tell me, the government of America in 2001, George Bush, Condolezza Rice, Dick Cheney…did they have any connection to the oil industry at all?
I have noticed a difference in the manner of trolls. Human interest like music, or movies is not a part of their job description, therefore not a profitable venture.
I hope that comment does not initiate a barrage of bad taste.
Goodnight good people (and twats).
Ben.
Steely Dan. Thanks.
Amadou & Mariam here,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwsEvwWMy-Q
Goodnight All.
Ahhhhhhh…….AHHHHHHFrica. nice as the indigenous spice. Thx Sofia.
“Anon” – help me out here. What was the original mission in Afghanistan? Because it was known very early on that the Taliban was willing to turn UBL over to a third party, the information was provided by the Swiss (who were given a right dressing down for their trouble):
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5
I’m confident you’re not going to wriggle about the matter of evidence – after all, if it’s sufficient to go invading and occupying a country, it has to be _damned- convincing. Right?
I’m becoming more aware that progressives do have a tragic flaw. That which makes us stronger in a sense, makes us weaker; compassion and forbearance are chief amongst them. History and personal experience shows that the most amoral persons rise to the top by virtue of their vices.
Stepping onto the backs of those who preceded you to raise themselves is a conservative virtue.
It’s the same old story. What does a civilized society do with it’s psychopaths (not to conflate the former) who choose to persist in anti-social behavior?
Ben: We have another, arguably worse flaw. We believe that the truth is a winning argument, that decency will sway opinion in the right direction, that fair play is what everyone really wants to see. None of these things is true with a right-winger, who can only cravenly respect might, fawns to their perceived superiors, and actually considers those with more money their betters. Those are alien concepts.
As to your last question – what does a civilised society do with it’s anti-social psychopaths? Why, elect them to high office, and reward them lavishly as CEOs (if they are of the high-functioning variety), of course! Why would crony capitalism waste such useful ability?
Fred @ 11;31
“I don’t believe much of the planning hadn’t been done prior to 11th September.”
The Afghanistan war was planned before 9/11 (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1550366.stm and this). According to French intelligence officers, the U.S. wanted to run an oil pipeline through Afghanistan to transport Central Asian oil more easily and cheaply. And so the U.S. told the Taliban shortly before 9/11 that they would either get “a carpet of gold or a carpet of bombs”, the former if they greenlighted the pipeline, the second if they didn’t. See this, this and this.
Many Maps on this Link Fred @
http://www.globalresearch.ca/its-not-just-the-oil-the-middle-east-war-and-the-conquest-of-natural-gas-reserves/5307589
Glenn; Nice to see you. I think a healthy dose of skepticism is the first tonic a progressive should drink. This softer side is what is most easily exploited. The debate I keep hearing in the Media is about reaching a consensus is the foremost goal of the political man. Compromise is a noble tactic, but boundaries must be respected or capitulation is the result, rather than compromise.
Right now, I think progressivism is in the drivers seat if we play our cards right, since most of the our difficulties are financial in nature, (in US and UK) it is easy to look at conservatives with a fish-eye. They are on the run, despite what they protest is an upswing. They obviously have little grasp of history, so it’s easy to conclude they lack prescience. This is all good for us.
Sofia Kibo Noh 18 Feb, 2014 – 12:48 am
You got me again, Sophia.
.
.
.
.
Thanks.
Rock meets Dance
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWDLl-PeIgY