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.
Mike yes Fisk always has something pertinent to say. Not surprised by the headline. Its independence is not what it was under Andreas Whittam Smith.
Fisk’s comment about Al Jazeera not knowing what the Qataris were feeding London reminded me that Lord Justice Nicholas Phillips, who presided over the unsuccessful extradition appeal of Julian Assange and retired straight afterwards, is now an extortionately highly-paid legal adviser to Qatar. Wheels within wheels. Rewards for services rendered.
Justice for immigrant slaves, over which the Nepalese ambassador was recalled during Phillips’ watch for calling Qatar an ‘open jail’, is hardly likely to be on his agenda. His agenda is more likely to be how best to promote the 2022 World Cup and make a notoriously wicked regime appear palatable to western audiences. Hence the Qatari-backed torture evidence presented in London was not shared with the NGOs Amnesty and HRW. Why. Because Qatar and human rights are antonyms.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/12/18/amnesty-international-says-dozens-migrant-workers-in-qatar-low-on-food-due-to/
Indeed, John. I wonder how many construction workers will die to make the stadia for 2022.
Uzbek in the UK,
I just wish to offer you a few kindly words of support, to try to counter the abuse directed at you earlier. I much appreciate your comments on this blog.
UzbStan,
I wish to offer you my sympathy for having to live under the tyranny in Uzbekistan. Psychologically, anger is one of the common responses to threat, and it is only natural that when threatened by the overwhelming power of the Uzbek state, you turn your resulting anger away from the true aggressors and towards someone who cannot hurt you.
I wish you strength and courage.
“Mike yes Fisk always has something pertinent to say”
It is interesting to note that Fisk sees the intention of the Qatar report as being somewhat different to that propounded by Craig in his response to me of yesterday.
Curveball is Today Known as ‘Caesar’ – Syrian War Crimes
Uzbek in the UK
I’d like to second Clark’s support.
I am not sure that UzbStan is who he says he is – if he really is scared of the Uzbek authorities why include the reference to your own relatives. The abuse in Russian and the reference to the Home office application also arouse my suspicion. Sounds more reminiscent of what the KGB ( and I am sure its Uzbek subsidiary) consider to be a “subtle” hint – or what normal people call a threat.
As for my own little threat, many thanks RD for your support. Daniel will be pleased to know that I had a good nights sleep last night and I hope his Mummy read him a nice bedtime story.
@Mary
“If anyone is interested in a war criminal’s opinion on Syria, Ms Amanpour provides the opportunity here. She is a well known stooge for the warmongers.”
I appreciate that you may not like Ms Amanpour’s work or opinions – but last time I looked journalistic activity however distorted did not constitute a war crime. I shall not be sending a letter to her office.
Craig, I feel real sympathy for UzbStan. I note that UzbStan is in the UK, and is threatened via threats against relatives rather than directly. Personal courage is one thing, but coping with indirect threat delivered via threats against loved ones must be far more difficult to cope with.
For a society to rise up against state organised oppression, personal courage, even if widespread among members of the population, is insufficient. People have to take the terrible decision that they will continue their opposition even though their loved ones are made to suffer for it. I hope that I never have to face such a thing; I would rather die.
How about this?
‘Mr al Muallem demanded Mr Obama stand down as president and called on the government to commit to a transition of power – an issue expected to be central to the success of the talks.
However, Mr Kerry has rejected any discussion of Mr Obama quitting his post.’
Not really! 🙂 It goes like this.
‘In his opening exchange, opposition leader Ahmed Jarba accused the Syrian president of war crimes comparable to those committed by the Nazis during World War Two. He demanded Mr Assad stand down as president and called on the government to commit to a transition of power – an issue expected to be central to the success of the talks.
However, Mr al Muallem has rejected any discussion of Mr Assad quitting his post.’
http://news.sky.com/story/1198921/syria-clash-ends-constructive-start-to-talks
How dare they. Pure chutzpah.
@Guano
“The Alawis are not any part of Islam – even Shi’a.”
With this sort of sectarianism, I don’t think too much Anglo Saxon subterfuge is required. Don’t you think that the Caliphate might have fallen apart even without help from the UK – given that not a few diversive strains existed already. As for the pipedream of putting all back together …………. perhaps you should look at the impact on political geography of sectarianism in a slightly older religion.
ESLO, I agree with you that it is possible that UzbStan is as you suspect. I do not know, and therefore wrote what I did taking the comment at face value.
I suppose we should also remember that people part of but lower down in a structure of oppression may also be short of morally acceptable choices.
Mary
Obama will be stepping down as President in 2016 – its what happens in democracies rather than absolute monarchies. How long has the Assad dynasty been in power?
Perhaps others should consider whether the activities of Jobbik constitute anti-Semitism or unacceptable behaviour
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobbik
As a rule I tend to be a little suspicious of party leaders who turn up in Parliament in a “blackshirt” uniform. Mary is obviously more relaxed on such matters.
Apologies – should have been posted on the previous thread.
ESLO, so what is the value of US/UK support for the absolute monarchies of the Middle East to bring down Assad’s government?
John Goss
I once had the pleasure of doing jury service in Yeovil where Lord Justice Nicholas Phillips presided in an earlier stage of his career. Okay the cases involved the police chasing a drunk man who propelled his motor car through the fences of five back gardens and into a parked vehicle, and a little bit of something that nearly rhymes with shrubbery by a local farmer.
He definitely seemed to me to be the sort of man I wouldn’t mind owning up for: worldly-wise, completely non-judgemental and quietly spoken, without a hint of malice.
Can we bring him back from retirement for Assad please? ” Mr Assad, Sir, I have you down for serial Category 5 statutory war crimes. I have advised the jury that the only question they need to answer is whether you in fact were President of Syria at the tine of the events recorded here. They have decided you were, which means you are guilty of offences aforementioned. Sentencing will be done sometime in the near future, session adjourned.”
Worth their weight in gold. OohArgh!
ESLO,
It would seem to be a case of replacing bad with worse. But then the West has done that so many times. Every time there’s a new call for “intervention”, people like you ask people like myself to forget this long history and just respond to “but Hussein / Assad / Current Enemy is a brutal dictator”.
Are you sure this isn’t just the dregs of racism left in yourself? Just a hubristic belief that “our” decisions about “them” will always be superior to the decision that “they” make for themselves?
You keep trying to change my mind. Offer me something convincing, and I’ll change it myself.
“Obama will be stepping down as President in 2016 – its what happens in democracies rather than absolute monarchies. How long has the Assad dynasty been in power?”
Another Bush? Or a Clinton maybe?
The other day one of the trolls stated that families should not take power and rule undemocratically, referring to Assad.
I thought of Her Maj and her German connections, her second son who has just been in Bahrain again selling arms, her third son beating Labrador dogs when out shooting at Sandringham (one of the family’s leisure pursuits ie killing God’s creatures for sport) and her eldest grandson William and wife setting up companies to protect their ‘brand’ in the style of the Beckhams. The younger grandson Harry has been provided with a sinecure based in the Horse Guards.
http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/thread/1389983405.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25778294
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/kate-middleton-prince-william-establish-private-companies-protect-royal-brand-1432796
Meanwhile the eldest son and croc wife are being wheeled in and prepared to effect the takeover when the time comes.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-25797931
1.God save our gracious Queen,
Live long our noble Queen,
God save the Queen!
Send her victorious,
Happy and glorious,
Long to reign over us,
God save the Queen.
2.Thy choicest gifts in store
On her be pleased to pour,
Long may she reign;
May she defend our laws,
And ever give us cause
To sing with heart and voice,
God save the Queen!
3.God bless our native land,
May heaven’s protective hand
Still guard our shore;
May peace her power extend,
Foe be transformed to friend,
And Britain’s power depend
On war no more.
4.May just and righteous laws
Uphold the public cause,
And bless our isle.
Home of the brave and free,
Fair land and liberty,
We pray that still on thee
Kind heaven may smile.
5.And not this land alone-
But be thy mercies known
From shore to shore.
Lord, make the nations see
That men should brothers be,
And from one family
The wide world o’er.
There’s a whole lot of ‘reigning’ going on there. I cannot remember any elections or referenda on the establishment of the Saxe-Coburg-Gothas and latterly the Mountbatten Windsors (named after the castle LOL) as our rulers.
Clark
I suspect the net value goes in the opposite direction from that which you suggest i.e. the West receives net economic support in return for not upsetting the Saudis etc. That said I was always told that two wrongs do not make a right – so justifying the continuation of the Assad regime by reference to the abuses of the Gulf monarchies really has no intellectual or moral foundation.
To equate the level of political freedom, human rights and democracy in Syria with that in the USA is otiose in the extreme.
Mary you clearly do not understand the difference between a constitutional monarchy and an absolute one.
Good article. As another remarked above, how bad is this regime, f.ex compared to the West’s destruction of Iraq and Libya?
In Syria all peoples/faiths have found refuge.
And Iran should have accepted Geneve 1 and then offered their own interpretation? As far as I remember this is precisely what the UN ‘chief’ criticised them for: making their own interpretation of G1 -?
Some more on u.s. trumped-up Torture charges against Syria…
And once again, a disingenuous West along with a complicit UN is going into a so-called “peace conference” with unverified allegations designed to manipulate public perception on the most visceral levels, circumventing facts, logic, and reason, to bolster their position in a conflict they themselves engineered and are still purposefully perpetrating with the hopes of achieving long-desired “regime change.”
The ongoing conflict in Syria was engineered by the West and its regional allies as far back as 2007, revealed by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh in his article, ”The Redirection: Is the Administration’s new policy benefiting our enemies in the war on terrorism?” which prophetically stated (emphasis added):
“To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.”
It is now admitted that Al Qaeda comprises almost entirely all of the militants fighting the Syrian government, many of whom are foreigners crossing into Syrian territory with NATO’s aid.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-feigns-horror-over-cooked-up-report-on-syrian-war-they-engineered/5365797
“one of the [Royal] family’s leisure pursuits ie killing God’s creatures for sport”
Mary, the Sandringham Estate to which you refer contains exceptional biodiversity and is home to many of Britain’s rarest bird species due to traditional land management practices. The game birds that are shot all end up on the table and enjoy a far better quality of life than your average supermarket chicken.
I suspect your anger at the treatment of the game birds and Edward’s labrador (no evidence that it was actually beaten) is driven more by hatred of the Royals than any genuine concern for the animals.
Please, in future, refrain from sounding off about matters of which you know so little.
ESLO, I am not “justifying the continuation of the Assad regime” – please do not misrepresent my position so. But it is up to the people of Syria to change matters, and certainly not a bunch of fundamentalist armed thugs from UK ally and absolute monarchy Saudi Arabia.
Grief, you’d change your tune if it was happening here!
Alliances are always two-way. If they’re one-way, we don’t call them alliances, we call them client states, or occupied territory.
So are you basically saying that the UK prime Minister and the US President wanted to send the Western military into Syria as a favour to Saudi Arabia? Sounds a bit “tail wags dog” to me.
Excellent article, up to date and at a time when the western media’s rethoric, at the beginning of the peace negotiations, running concurrent with Davos’s arms dealers conference, is using negative connotations and words to talk up failure of decision making.
Mr. Kerry seems to think that the US administartion and senate has got more to say on the make up of a future Syrian Government than the Syrian’s themselve, a recipe for disaster.
Are they telling William Hague when and were to squeak? off course they do and he jumps to it. How come Israeli backers like him are able to speak at the negotiation table, whilst backers of Syria, such as Iran are frozen out.
The murderous mercenaries have got more to say in these negotiations than the Syrian opposition fighting them on a daily basis? We must not forget that even the SFA is now aghast at the relentless material support to the Quatari and Saudi paid rebels, have been sidelined by western machinations.
The refugee situation is untenable, but will all these Syrians have a vote on whatever the armsdealers/warmongers in Geneva and their mercenaries decide?
NO, but they wi8ll feel the violence that is to be metted out. I have no allegiance to Assad, but the is the bastard in charge, just as DSheik Mohammed is in charge of his Quatari bastards, I dare not speak of the house of saud who has lost credibility a long time ago, i.e. Yamanami.
The arms trade is in another boomtime, I see, i.e. many more unemployed had their applications refused and our canadian CEO BoE Mark Carveitalluppery is shivering with intent to raise the interest rates. Hooray another bubble helped to develop.
‘What a good man’ say the bankers, now watch the banks get nasty on borrowers.
For anyone thinking about buying a house, about 10mins in
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ix7vGXqxu2c#t=83
“Now you know why Homeland Security purchased 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition, enough ammunition to fight the Iraq war for 12 years, has its own para-military force and 2,700 tanks. If you think the “terrorist threat” in America warrants a domestic armed force of this size, you are out of your mind. This force has been assembled to deal with starving and homeless people in the streets of America.”
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2013/10/23/ye-sow-shall-ye-reap-paul-craig-roberts/
Anyone who quotes Global Research contributor and 9/11 Troofer Paul Craig Roberts approvingly needs their head examined. He and Global Research have been peddling this nonsense about “Fema camps” and tanks being used to obliterste the poor for decades.
ESLO, please read this article:
http://landdestroyer.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/al-qaeda-terrorists-pass-us-special.html
I can’t say if landdestroyer.blogspot.co.uk is a reliable source, but the article draws from articles in the UK Telegraph, New York Times, L A Times, New Yorker, etc.
Nearly ten thousand foreign fighters in Syria, most of them Islamists, arriving through NATO country Turkey.
ESLO, the more I look beneath the veneer supplied by our pro-war media, the more evidence I find to convince me that this is our war, the West’s war that is being inflicted upon Syria.
You may not be convinced, but please at least answer this; if you were convinced of this argument, would you condemn such Western interference?
Anon, Paul Craig Roberts or not, that ammunition and those tanks have been bought. Copies of the orders and invoices for the ammo have been published, and the tanks are simply visible.
“ESLO, I am not “justifying the continuation of the Assad regime” – please do not misrepresent my position so”
Please don’t misrepresent that I am misrepresent your position
“But it is up to the people of Syria to change matters, and certainly not a bunch of fundamentalist armed thugs from UK ally and absolute monarchy Saudi Arabia.”
Basically I agree – but what about the Russian weapons that do most of the killing for the regime or the support they receive from Iran and Hezbollah militia – or is that acceptable foreign involvement in Syrian affairs in your book.