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.
“Assad forces regularly pulled people out of their homes and murdered them or carted them off for torture. Every protest was genocidally put down. It is absolute and complete Islamophobic wishful thinking to imagine that the Syrian people would ever vote for him.”
Yet in 2010 the life expectancy of someone born in Syria was considerably better than someone born in Glasgow. The literacy rate over 90% compared to 3% in Qatar. The hard line treatment of fanatical extremists brought security for the average man in the street. Our support of fanatical extremists in Syria has brought death and destruction.
As in Iraq, which had never seen a suicide bombing prior to 2003 yet now ordinary people are being murdered daily and have been for over 10 years, I think the ordinary man in the street would prefer the security of a dictator than the misery of a democracy imposed on them by the West.
Habbabkuk (La vita è bella!, 24 Jan, 2014 – 10:39 pm
“@ John Goss
Somewhile ago you (ably) translated an unpleasant sentence in Russian from Usbstan or some similar name.
As you’ve often spoken out for transparency and openness, would you be inclined to share with us when, where and why you took the trouble to learn Russian so well?”
No!
But I’ll share my open letter to David Cameron with you, because while Craig’s post mentions atrocities in Syria, there are atrocities closer to home which need attention. I have stopped being polite when I write to the Prime Minister because I just get a standard response.
http://newsjunkiepost.com/2014/01/24/free-shaker-aamer-from-gitmo-an-open-letter-to-british-pm-david-cameron/
Fred
Cameron’s UK snipers started this Syrian civil war. A million protesters went to London to warn Blair what would happen when he took the lid off Saddam’s repression. Cameron avoided that and posed as a man of peace in the vote on the US bombing Assad.
It’s like the tax system, they charge you 20% on your earnings and 20% on your spending, 20% of your income on transport and 20% of what’s left on housing. They oppress you when they put in the dictator, then they oppress you when they take him out again.
Is it any wonder that the people are scrapping with eachother in the world?
Fudgebrains
Assad is one of those disbelievers who refuse, like the Japanese in WW2 to relinquish power without being forced by ruthless, excessive brutal opposition. After being forced into submission they became the greatest brains on earth and a bye-word for politeness.
It takes a lot of single-minded resolution to get rid of people like these.
“I think the ordinary man in the street would prefer the security of a dictator than the misery of a democracy imposed on them by the West.”
The ordinary man in Syria would prefer neither.
“Assad is one of those disbelievers who refuse, like the Japanese in WW2 to relinquish power without being forced by ruthless, excessive brutal opposition.”
Yup, Churchill was a lot like that as well.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/07/09/article-2359101-1ABCBCDF000005DC-317_634x195.jpg
Similarities to Libya and Syria seen in Ukraine.
January 24, 2014
Libya, Syria And Now Ukraine – Color Revolution By Force
The same forces that instigated unruly demonstrations in 2011 in Syria are now instigating such demonstrations in the Ukraine. That at least is what I am reading out of the fact that the exactly same graphics are used to train the willing-to-fight demonstrators. How else to explain the above graphics, once with Arabic and once with in Cyrillic letters?
Accompanying the demonstrations and illegal occupations of government buildings are in both cases brutal, criminal attacks on the police and other government forces. In Syria the violence “muscle” part was done by foreign financed Jihadists while neo-nazi gangs are used in the Ukraine. The demonstrations and the attacks on the state are planned and go together. There is nothing “peaceful” in demonstrations that are only the public-relations cover for attacks on the state. But the foreign politicians and media immediately utter “concerns” and threats over completely normal government responses to them. It is a scam to justify “western” “support” for the demonstrators and to further the violence.
The aim is “regime change” of legitimate governments by small minorities. Should the “regime” resist to that the alternative of destroying the state and the whole society is also wholeheartedly accepted.
Several German media used of the “regime” slander for the dully elected Ukrainian government today and did some concern trolling about “peaceful demonstrators” while policemen in Kiev were doused with Molotov cocktails. It is very obvious what is going on here and the media are playing along with the politicians, militaries and secret services that are behind these “revolutions”.
Color revolutions in the old form had become too obvious a scheme to be of further use. The concept was therefore extended to include intensive use of force and mercenaries and to support those forces from the outside with weapons, ammunition, training and other means. After Libya, where Gaddhafi forces are still fighting back, Syria was destroyed and now the Ukraine is the target. There are likely lists of other countries that shall be attacked by such means. What is really behind the Gezi-park demonstrations in Turkey and the protests in Bangkok? Are foreign powers behind these too or are they just copycat actions by local groups? How does Egypt fit in?
And what is the best defense a legitimate government can build against and how should it react to such attacks?
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2014/01/libya-syria-and-now-ukraine-color-revolution-by-force.html
Plus forum
Is this the start of the end? It’s two weeks too late according to some predictions I’ve read.
http://iacknowledge.net/hsbc-bank-on-verge-of-collapse-second-major-banking-crash-imminent/
Thanks for the good links to an excellent diplomat, Someone, a man who speaks out about what he sees to be wrong, unlike so many wannabe politicians and second hand diplomats here, sunning themsleves in the light of others.
Dummkopf!
Und ‘mal Klappe zu!
Fudgebrains
I forgive you two for your personalised jibes, not that this will stop you.
NATO is making itself unpopular to the clapping sound of some feckless spend thrift civil servants who could not care less how much taxpayers money is wasted on them and NATO. Its not just Syria that has stumped NATO, their aim and objectives have been highjacked by warmongers such as technocrat Rasmussen and piss envoy’s such as Bliar.What do they need a new headquarter for? Is the old one not spy proof enough? As long as they can carry on wiping the arse of Netanyahu and his fascists friends these NATO scribblers could not care less.
I’m beginning to entertain the idea of letting go of the EU, its feckless commission, NATO and the open border and free trade policie. Let all these TNC’s and their brand marketeers fight for the markets and reintroduce tarifs and import taxation.
And as a mark of respect to the new rulers of the world, BMW, now that they sorted many of the inherent technical deficiencies, should be encouraged to sell its British marque cars to Chinese off shore investors, enpowering the happy millionaires here, as well as the tax-fleeced and still slumbering British electorate with cheaper Chinese made British cars.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/construction-of-new-nato-headquarters-in-brussel-overbudget-a-944468.html
Ukraine protests going global. Makes Occupy look like dilettantes.
http://21stcenturywire.com/201…..es-go-home
wherever the drones fly Margaretta D’Arcy will put her banner to. The cancer ridden peace activists, who has dared to protests against US hegemony over irish territory and their use of murderous drone’s, is festering away in an Irish jail.
It exemplifies irish party politicians and their aims to be seen as brutal and emotionally stultified as their British counterparts.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/25/irish-president-free-margaretta-darcy
When Michael D Higgins took office in 2011 we had high hopes.
His speech –
‘We must seek to build together an active, inclusive citizenship; based on participation, equality, respect for all and the flowering of creativity in all its forms. A confident people is our hope, a people at ease with itself, a people that grasps the deep meaning of the proverb ‘ní neart go cur le chéile’ – our strength lies in our common weal – our social solidarity.
Sin iad mór-théamaí na hUachtaránachta atá curtha romham agam, agus mé
lán-dóchasach go bhfuilimid ar tháirseach ré nua d’Éirinn agus d’Éireannaigh, sa bhaile agus i gcéin. Ré nua ina mbeidh bunluacha na cothroime agus an chirt, agus spiorad na cruthaíochta, faoi bhláth: poblacht, a mbeidh Éireannaigh de gach aicme agus traidisiún bródúil aisti.
My Presidency will be a Presidency of transformation, recognising and building on the many positive initiatives already under way in communities, in the economy, and in individual and collective efforts throughout our land. It will be a Presidency that celebrates all of our possibilities. It will seek to be of assistance and encouragement to investment and job creation, to innovation and original thinking – a Presidency of ideas – recognising and open to new paradigms of thought and action. It will aspire to turn the best of ideas into living realities for all of our people, realising our limitless possibilities – ár feidireachtaí gan teorainn.
In implementing the mandate you have given me, I will seek to achieve an inclusive citizenship where every citizen participates and everyone is treated with respect. I will highlight and support initiatives for inclusion across Ireland and also make it a priority to visit and to support the participation of the most excluded in our society, including those in institutional care.’
and more of the same.
So much for fine words. I say that people are disappointing.
http://www.president.ie/featured-posts-without-news/welcome-to-president-ie-2/
““Assad is one of those disbelievers who refuse, like the Japanese in WW2 to relinquish power without being forced by ruthless, excessive brutal opposition.”
Yup, Churchill was a lot like that as well.”
___________________-
Yeah, Fred, sure.
Grow up, for Heaven’s sake.
“The spooky Scarlett (ie, Johansson) is now on the board of Murdoch’s Times. That fits.”
__________________
Fits what, exactly, Mary?
And why “spooky”? Most normal people would probably think she’s young and beautiful. You really are an old crab.
You have twisted my comment by adding ie Johansson to it. My comment read:
“The spooky Scarlett is now on the board of Murdoch’s Times. That fits.”
and referred to the ex head of MI6 and member of the JIC, as I said and as you damn well know. Get lost and cut your crap.
Another knee-jerk from the Resident Denigrator:
“Try getting HSBC to hand over your own money! Who do they think they are? They have probably got the wind up ever since they were done for money laundering in the US.
HSBC imposes restrictions on large cash withdrawals http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25861717”
_______________________
Let me educate her.
This is almost certainly connected with a current EU Directive, loosely known as the “Money laundering Directive”, which stipulates that transactions and purchases over a certain amount must be carried out in a way that is traceable (eg, bank transfer, bank draft, credit or debit card, cheque, etc..) and cannot be effected simply by handing over a wad of £50 or €500 notes. The Directive provides that the maximum transaction in cash from 2014 is limited to €3000. It would therefore seem logical that banks should attempt to assist the respect of this provision by limiting the amount of cash an individual can withdraw without explanantion from his bank account to that same amount.
Readers will note that another objective of the “Money laundering Directive” – albeit an unstated objective – is to assist govts in their fight against illegal tax avoidance (both direct and indirect tax).
I imagine that no one on this blog would support either money laundering or illegal tax avoidance.
In conclusion, therefore, Mary’s post is an attempt to put yet another issue in the worst possible light:
** it does not attempt to supply relevant context
** and it gives the misleading impression that – quote – banks make it hard for you to get at your money. False – had the gentleman featured in the “story” Mary linked to asked his bank to transfer the £7000 to his mother’s account he would have had no trouble at all. Why didn’t he? Doesn’t his mother have a bank account?
@ Mary
Do you deny that you were being unpleasant about Scarlett Johansson? I quote :
“No. It’s the Oxfam/Sodastream supporter, actress Scarlett Johansson. Her agent had better extricate her from the mess before her career follows the same path as the Sodastream share price.”
_______________
I assume that the above isn’t just your twisted way of expressing concern but, rather, another manifestation of your evident urge to be unpleasanr and denigratory about just about everyone.
Here’s a deal – I’ll cut what you charmingly call the “crap” if you promise to have surgery to get your bile duct removed.
“I forgive you two for your personalised jibes, …”
______________
Thanks, Nevermind, I appreciate that.
Habbabkuk’s question to Mr Goss
“Somewhile ago you (ably) translated an unpleasant sentence in Russian from Usbstan or some similar name.
As you’ve often spoken out for transparency and openness, would you be inclined to share with us when, where and why you took the trouble to learn Russian so well?”
Mr Goss’s reply :
“No!”
Why so coy, I wonder?
Would it help if I just limited my question to the “why”?
For the others here. It is important to know that Oxfam are protecting Scarlett Johansson, this supporter of the Zionist construct, Israel. Sorry it is rather long but I do not have a link.
Oxfam’s cowardly stance on Scarlett Johansson’s Israeli settlement profiteering
Human rights defenders took some encouragement yesterday from a statement by Oxfam implicitly criticizing Hollywood star Scarlett Johansson for a multi-million dollar endorsement deal with the Israeli-occupation profiteering firm SodaStream.
Johansson is also an “Oxfam Global Ambassador,” representing the human rights and development charity and helping it raise money around the world.
The Oxfam statement said that it was in “dialogue” with Johannson, suggesting that action might be forthcoming.
But yesterday, an excellent post on the growing controversy, by Robert Mackey, for The Lede blog at nytimes.com, revealed:
A spokesman for Oxfam, Matt Herrick, told The Lede in an email on Thursday that the group had not asked Ms. Johansson to withdraw from her endorsement deal with SodaStream. Oxfam objected in 2009 when another ambassador, the American actress Kristin Davis, agreed to endorse Ahava, an Israeli cosmetics company that also has a factory in a West Bank settlement. After a wave of negative publicity, Ahava and Ms. Davis quickly parted ways.
This is quite disturbing. Given the facts, the very least Oxfam could do is to give Johansson a clear choice: them or us. It is impossible to be an “ambassador” both for a human rights group and for human rights abusers!
Oxfam’s earlier statement said that it had informed Johansson “that businesses that operate in settlements further the ongoing poverty and denial of rights of the Palestinian communities that we work to support.”
Mackey’s post provides details about SodaStream’s presence in an illegal West Bank settlement, as well as providing information on the routine abuses in industrial zones in the occupied West Bank (among other sources, Mackey cites The Electronic Intifada’s report from last year “SodaStream ‘treats us like slaves,’ says Palestinian factory worker”).
Baffling
“Oxfam has been clear about settlements being a major barrier for peace, which makes it baffling that they would not ask their own Global Ambassador to end her support for a company based in a settlement and profiting from exploiting Palestinian land, labor, and resources,” Ramah Kudaimi of the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, wrote The Electronic Intifada in an email.
“We call again on Oxfam to hold up its values and cut ties with Scarlett,” Kudaimi added.
The US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation recently issued an action alert asking people to contact Oxfam America president Raymond Offenheiser, to urge that Oxfam “press Scarlett to end her deal with SodaStream or…end its relationship with the actress to send the message that supporting companies that profit from occupation and human rights abuses is unacceptable.”
In the UK, the Palestine Solidarity Campaign has issued a similar call.
Duplicity
Oxfam’s hiding behind “dialogue” while failing to act is no different from the US-sponsored so-called “peace process” in which Palestinians are invited to engage in endless “dialogue” with Israel, while Israel continues to gobble up their land.
Groups like Oxfam are supposed to provide a civil society alternative to such government duplicity. Instead, we see Oxfam emulating it in the most cowardly way.
It’s time for Oxfam to act on its principles instead of just talking about them.
I will be tweeting this post at @Oxfam and @OxfamAmerica as well as some of the key personnel who have been disseminating the “dialogue” statement online.
These include @Winnie_Byanyima, executive director of Oxfam international, @Mark_Goldring, chief executive of Oxfam UK and @mattmherrick, director of media for Oxfam America.
While Oxfam hides, the controversy and attention Johansson’s shameful deal with SodaStream is attracting only continues to grow.
—
One Democratic State Group
odsg.org/co
“For the others here. It is important to know that Oxfam are protecting Scarlett Johansson, this supporter of the Zionist construct, Israel.”
___________________
It’s not important at all.
Why do YOU think it’s so important? Important for WHOM?
*******************
BTW, YOU HAVEN’T RESPONDED to the following post of mine yet :
“@ Mary
“At the bottom of that page is this little snipper about BLiar’s pal Jamie Dimon (Diamond?)”
______________________
I suppose that the “(Diamond?)” is your courageous way of hinting that he’s Jewish?
And then various Eminences deny that there is a nasty undercurrent of anti-semitism on this blog……
PS – his parents were Greek (Greek Orthodox, to reassure you)”
Why did you put “Diamond?” in brackets after Jamie Dimon’s name?
Drone Warfare
More than 2,400 dead as Obama’s drone campaign marks five years
http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2014/01/23/more-than-2400-dead-as-obamas-drone-campaign-marks-five-years/
and on the same website
‘An unprecedented attempt to discover if UK officials are complicit in CIA drone strikes in Pakistan has been stopped by the Court of Appeal.
The court ruled that a case being brought by a Pakistani whose father was killed in a CIA drone strike on March 17 2011, could not go ahead as it could require an English court to pass judgements on the United States.
The case was brought by Noor Khan whose father was a tribal elder from Pakistan’s northwestern tribal region. Khan’s father died as he led a tribal council. At least 18 other civilians were reported killed in the strike.
For two years Noor Khan has been trying to get English courts to examine whether UK officials at GCHQ share information about targets in Pakistan with the CIA, and whether this could therefore make British spies complicit in murder or war crimes. The British government has consistently refused to confirm or deny whether it does share such intelligence.’
Drone Warfare
First UK legal challenge to CIA drones blocked by Court of Appeal
http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2014/01/20/first-uk-legal-challenge-to-cia-drones-blocked-by-court-of-appeal/
“Debt Rattle Jan 25 2014: A Bank Run in London?”
http://www.theautomaticearth.com/debt-rattle-jan-25-2014-bank-run-london/
“Bank-Run Fears Continue; HSBC Restricts Large Cash Withdrawals”
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-01-24/bank-run-fears-continue-hsbc-restricts-large-cash-withdrawals
“If and when uncertainty spreads to the dollar, the real crisis will arrive, likely followed by high inflation, exchange controls, pension confiscations, and resurrected illegality of owning gold and silver. Capitalist greed aided and abetted by economists and policymakers will have destroyed America.”
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/01/25/economists-policymakers-murdered-economy-paul-craig-roberts/
This is simply about HSBC addressing money laundering and banks have always requested advance warning for cash withdrawals over £1,000. Card transactions and BACS transfers are unaffected but no; this has to be a sign that the End Times are upon us.
Very few, if any, of the extreme predictions from these ‘anti-capitalist’ Global Research authors ever seem to come to fruition. One would be forgiven for thinking they are only in it for the money.
Yes Anon, until it happens all the predictions are incorrect. When it does happen they suddenly gain credibility. Take a look at this.
https://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/stunnning-chart-todays-stock-market-is-eerily-reminiscent-of-1929_12042013
This is Monzer Akbik mouthpiece of the Syrian Opposition, promoting the ‘Assad must go’ theme, being interviewed by Zeinab Badawi of the BBC World Service. The BBC is going its utmost to promote the removal of Assad. The 22.30 news just now on BBC1 was packed out with it.
Monzer Akbik – Syrian National Coalition
November 2013
Duration: 30 minutes
With the first formal negotiations between the Syrian government and opposition leaders, the Geneva 2 conference, planned to take place soon, Zeinab Badawi speaks to Monzer Akbik, the chief of staff to the leader of the Syrian opposition umbrella group, the Syrian National Coalition.
The UN envoy Lakhdar Brahimi has been in Damascus to meet President Assad in preparation for the talks. However, there is disarray in rebel ranks about whether they should attend the talks at all. So is the opposition scuppering the best chance to end the bloodshed in Syria?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03gq5yq
I can remember this excruciating puff piece Badawi did with Mrs BLiar.
There was another which I cannot find.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrqwtLd8dBo
From the start
“Yeah, Fred, sure.
Grow up, for Heaven’s sake.”
Hey shit for brains doesn’t think the British bulldog “we’ll fight them on the beaches” spirit becoming of people of colour.
BTW, were your parents very closely related?