Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

B[elated] Broadcasting Corporation reports on ‘UK’s secret mission to beat Gaddafi’ — Silent on not-so-secret mission to beat Assad

By Maidhc Ó Cathail | The Passionate Attachment | February 11, 2012

Almost a year late, on January 19 the BBC “revealed”:

British efforts to help topple Colonel Gaddafi were not limited to air strikes. On the ground – and on the quiet – special forces soldiers were blending in with rebel fighters. This is the previously untold account of the crucial part they played.

On February 8, the Israeli intelligence-linked Debkafile reported:

British and Qatari special operations units are operating with rebel forces under cover in the Syrian city of Homs just 162 kilometers from Damascus, according to debkafile’s exclusive military and intelligence sources. The foreign troops are not engaged in direct combat with the Syrian forces bombarding different parts of Syria’s third largest city of 1.2 million. They are tactical advisers, manage rebel communications lines and relay their requests for arms, ammo, fighters and logistical aid to outside suppliers, mostly in Turkey.

This site is the first to report the presence of foreign military forces in any of the Syrian uprising’s embattled areas.

Our sources report the two foreign contingents have set up four centers of operation – in the northern Homs district of Khaldiya, Bab Amro in the east, and Bab Derib and Rastan in the north. Each district is home to about a quarter of a million people.

How long will it take before the venerable Beeb decides to report the “Inside story of the UK’s secret mission to beat Assad”?

Related articles

February 11, 2012 Posted by | Deception, Militarism, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

Veteran US Diplomat Questions Syria Storyline

By Sharmine Narwani | Al Akhbar | 2012-02-10

The problem with US policy in the Middle East is that it now operates almost entirely at the political level: gone are the days when area experts were the heavyweights in the command center, weaving historical context, relationships and nuance into vital policy decisions.

Today you are more likely to have single-issue interest groups, commercial projects and election cycles impact key deliberations. It’s a short-term view: tactical more than strategic and black and white in its approach. Like a high-octane marketing campaign, it is heavily focused on key phrases, scene-setting, and narrative building.

The spotlight on Syria in recent weeks has been intense and the propaganda has been incessant: Regime massacres in Homs, evil Russia and China, a benevolent UN Security Council trying to save Syria, 1982’s Hama slaughter resuscitated, and an American ambassador left “disgusted” at the gall of others using veto power.

But take the hysteria down a notch or two, bring the debate back into the hands of measured, experienced observers, and the storyline may be tangibly different. Over the weekend, I had the privilege of receiving an email that reminded me of a time when area experts at the US State Department delivered honest assessments of events so that wiser decisions could be taken.

The missive was from a former US diplomat with service experience in Syria who has asked to remain unnamed. I am publishing the email below in its entirety for the benefit of readers:

I have serious problems with all the talk about military intervention in Syria. Everyone, especially the media, seems to be relying solely on anti-regime activists for their information. How do we know 260 people were killed by the regime in Homs yesterday? That number seems based solely on claims by anti-regime figures and I seriously doubt its accuracy.

I served over three years in Damascus at the US Embassy and I know how difficult it is to sort fact from rumor in that closed political society. We were constantly trying to verify rumors that we had heard about assassinations, regime arrests, etc., and that included the Agency, which was just as much in the dark as everyone else. Today, we have a skeleton embassy which I am sure is under constant surveillance and with very few personnel to go out and report on what is happening. When I was in Damascus over two years ago, I was less than impressed with the Embassy’s sources and with its understanding of the dynamics of what was going on Syria. And the same is true when I talk to officials at the State Department.

The media, and to an extent the Administration, have personalized the conflict in Syria as being about Bashar Assad and his family. They have consistently underestimated the sectarian nature of the conflict there. It is not just Bashar Assad and his family that are hanging onto power at all costs, it is the entire Alawi system of control of the country, including the military, the security services and the Baath Party. I believe that Alawites firmly think that if they lose power, the Sunnis will slaughter them, That was one reason Hafez and his brother Rifaat were so ruthless in Hama thirty years ago. And everyone in the West conveniently forgets the campaign of assassinations and suicide bombings carried out in the three or four years before Hama by the Muslim Brotherhood throughout the country. I personally witnessed the aftermath of such bombings in which several hundred people were killed. While the State Department, the CIA and other organs of government may have short historical memories, the people in Syria do not.

There have been few good analyses of the conflict in Syria. With the exception of the journalist Nir Rosen and the International Crisis Group, most reporting has been superficial and biased in favor of opponents of the regime. This is no basis on which to base policy, especially if officials in Washington are contemplating some form of military intervention. We would be opening a Pandora’s box of sectarian conflict that could easily spread to Lebanon, Israel, Kurdish areas of Iraq and elsewhere.

One irony of the current situation compared to thirty years ago is Iraq’s role. Then, we had reasonably good information that Saddam Hussein was supporting the Brotherhood with arms, explosives and facilitating the smuggling of both across the Syrian-Iraqi border. Today, the Maliki government in Baghdad appears to be supporting the Assad regime. And thirty years ago, we also had information that the Brotherhood leadership was given sanctuary in Jordan by King Hussein and in Saudi Arabia.

I don’t think we know how to play in this arena, just as we don’t understand how to play in the Afghanistan-Pakistan arena. US military intervention, whether under the guise of NATO or some other umbrella, could have serious unforeseen consequences for the US, Europe and the region. Officials in Washington should have the law of unforeseen consequences hammered into their heads every morning.

These thoughts are from a US diplomat with direct and fairly recent experience in Syria. Why don’t we ever hear similarly sober assessments from the figures in Washington? Part of the reason, of course, is the over-politicization of the policy-making process, which has long been wrested from the hands of able area experts and delivered into the arms of hawks, ideologues and politicians building campaign warchests.

It is worth mentioning that much of the US administration’s focus on Syria derives from its unhealthy fixation on Iran. In supporting Iran’s worldview that US and Israeli hegemony in the Middle East must end, Syria has put itself in the crosshairs of American policy priorities.

The New York Times’ David Sanger wrote shortly after the Arab Awakening had devoured its first two dictators, Tunisia’s Zine El Abidine Ben Ali and Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak:

“Every decision — from Libya to Yemen to Bahrain to Syria — is being examined under the prism of how it will affect what was, until mid-January, the dominating calculus in the Obama administration’s regional strategy: how to slow Iran’s nuclear progress, and speed the arrival of opportunities for a successful uprising there.”

Efforts to undermine Bashar Assad’s government were a longstanding policy objective, even in the years before popular revolts hit the wider Middle East in 2011. WikiLeaks has revealed a veritable goldmine of information about Washington’s interventions in Syria, which include direct US financial assistance to opposition groups.

Dirty politics and geopolitical mudslinging aside, at the heart of this matter rests an issue that is fundamental to good policy-making: When do handy narratives simply become lies that spawn bad policies?

This WikiLeaks cable from 2006 illustrates Washington’s efforts to identify “opportunities” to expose “vulnerabilities” in the Syrian regime and cause sectarian/ethnic division, discord within the military/security apparatus and economic hardship. How will the US achieve this? The cable lists a whole host of Syrian vulnerabilities to be exploited, and then recommends:

“These proposals will need to be fleshed out and converted into real actions and we need to be ready to move quickly to take advantage of such opportunities. Many of our suggestions underline using Public Diplomacy and more indirect means to send messages that influence the inner circle.”

Propagandizing the American Public

Public Diplomacy, in effect, means propaganda – which under the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 specifies the terms in which the US government can disseminate information to foreign audiences. In 1972, the Act prohibited domestic access to information intended for foreign audiences – in other words, it became illegal for the US government to propagandize Americans.

But Washington has found many ways around this. After all, US citizens need to be “on board” the myriad overseas military adventures undertaken by successive administrations. How, then, does government stay within the confines of the law while propagandizing Americans so that they are pumped up for wars (Iraq, Afghanistan, maybe Iran), weapons sales to questionable allies (Saudi Arabia and Israel), and human rights violations (Guantanamo, drones)?

The fake story of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) targeting the US and its allies was an essential narrative in the build-up to military intervention in Iraq. Recall then-Secretary of State Colin Powell’s testimony about evidence of Saddam’s WMD activities and President George W. Bush’s State of the Union speech when he falsely accused Iraq of procuring yellowcake uranium from Niger – the media scrutiny of these statements was wholly justified: it is illegal to lie to the American people.

Officials are careful about how they circumvent the restrictions of Smith-Mundt. The quickest way to feed Americans inaccurate, tainted or sometimes entirely false information is through “leaks.” Peruse any newspaper of record in Washington, New York or Los Angeles and you will see the foreign news sections chock full of leaks from “officials.”

The internet, too, is a natural playground for the dissemination of disinformation. Its vast reach across the globe, its millions of blogs with varying credibility – these lend themselves well to the game of public diplomacy.

Powell’s former Chief of Staff Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson – another ex-official who has spoken candidly about policy and process shortcomings since leaving his post – told me in April 2010: “(Defense Secretary Donald) Rumsfeld and others, for example, just ignored the law. They would put a story in a Sydney newspaper, for example, and then ‘internet it’ back to the United States. So you’re propagandizing the American people.”

Wilkerson insists: “we have a statutory divergence that needs to be fixed first – legislation that says you can’t mix public affairs, which is aimed at the American people, and public diplomacy, which is aimed at the international audience. We need to stop propaganda, period. We need to tell the truth. I understand we don’t give out state secrets, but why don’t we tell the truth?”

The problem with foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East, is ultimately about the kinds of people making the decisions – ideologues with clear agendas: against Iran and for Israel; against the Syrian “dictator” but in favor of the Saudi, Bahraini, Yemeni, Qatari ones; against Iranian nuclear capability, defending 200 nukes in Israel; abusing UN veto power (80+ times), deriding others for exercising a veto (Russia, China), and so on and so forth.

“It’s broken – it’s utterly dysfunctional,” Wilkerson says about the decision-making process in government: “They put ideologues in to corral, corner, orchestrate, cajole, push, wheedle the civil servants into doing something that they think ought to be done.”

Back to Syria.

A reporter from a major western cable news network just emailed me about his visit to Syria: “I got back from Homs last month unconvinced that the country was rising up against the Assad regime, and far from convinced that there are any good guys.”

Very little is known about what’s going on in the country. And it is not necessarily because there is limited media there: the Arab League mission report lists 147 foreign and Arab media organizations in Syria. The reason we still do not know what is taking place in Homs is because there is a ferocious battle for narratives between two rigid political mindsets. And the current dominant narrative is the one coming out of Washington – which, according to Wikileaks, has been waiting for “opportunities” to seize upon “vulnerabilities” to undermine the regime of Bashar Assad.

Not give us the truth, mind you. But to pursue a policy objective that US citizens have not agreed upon because they are unaware of the facts.

Sharmine Narwani is a commentary writer and political analyst covering the Middle East. You can follow Sharmine on twitter @snarwani.

February 10, 2012 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Timeless or most popular | , , , , | Leave a comment

Seven abducted Iranian engineers released in Syria

Press TV – February 10, 2012

The seven Iranian engineers and specialists abducted while working on a power plant project in the Syrian city of Homs in December have been released.

“The engineers who were working on the development of Syria’s Jandar power plant were kidnapped by terrorist groups in this country based on unfounded claims such as collaboration with Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guard Corps,” an informed source with the Iranian Energy Ministry said on Friday.

Five of the seven freed Iranians were kidnapped by unknown armed gunmen on their way to the 450-MW power plant in the troubled Syrian city of Homs on December 21.

The technicians have been building the city’s Jandar power plant for the past two years.

The two other released Iranians were abducted one day after the initial kidnapping while on a mission to establish the whereabouts of the missing engineers.

Iranian engineers and experts are currently implementing development projects in Syria, valued at more than 1.7 billion dollars.

A group of 11 Iranian pilgrims, who were kidnapped by the ‘Free Syrian Army’ on a road connecting the Syrian city of Hama to the capital, Damascus, on February 1, were handed over to Iranian officials in the Turkish city of Adana on Thursday.

The Free Syrian Army is affiliated to the Syrian opposition groups which have cordial relations with Ankara.

However, the whereabouts of another 11 Iranians, who were abducted on January 26 by a group of unidentified armed men on a road connecting Damascus to the northwestern city of Aleppo, remains unknown.

Syria has been experiencing unrest since mid-March 2011. While the opposition blames the government, the Syrian government says “outlaws, saboteurs and armed terrorist groups” are responsible for the unrest, which is being orchestrated from abroad.

February 10, 2012 Posted by | War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

Russia Says West “Accomplice” to Violence in Syria

Al-Manar | February 10, 2012

Russia accused the West on Friday of being an “accomplice” to the violence in Syria and said the country’s opposition bore full responsibility for ending the ongoing violence.

Speaking to ITAR-TASS news agency, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said that “Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad’s promise to stage a new constitutional referendum meant that it was now up to the armed resistance movement to take the next step.”

He also warned that “Russia was ready to follow this month’s veto of a draft UN Security Council resolution on the crisis with additional strong measures if the West continues to refuse acknowledging the opposition’s role in the crisis.”

“The Syrian leadership has assured us of its readiness to quickly hold a referendum on a new constitution and move toward elections,” Ryabkov said.

“This means that the opposition bears full responsibility for improving the situation and finding a way to stop the bloodshed… Western states that push the Syrian opposition into uncompromising measures, which arm them and give them advice and instructions are accomplices in the process of inflaming the crisis,” he added.

“The responsibility rests with those who while holding the levers of influence over the opposition still fail to call it to order and demand that it accepts the Syrian government’s offers and begin real talks,” the Russian deputy foreign minister further pointed out, warning that “Russia will have to again and again resort to strong measures at the Security Council if Western states introduce new resolutions on the crisis that only blame Assad.”

In addition, Ryabkov dismissed joint efforts by the United States and Turkey to organize an international conference on the crisis and possible relief efforts for the opposition.

“Russia does not share the West’s views about so-called humanitarian intervention,” he said.

Related articles

February 10, 2012 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Lavrov Cheered by Syrians, Holds Talks with Assad

Al-Manar | February 7, 2012

The Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov held talks with Syrian President Bashar Assad, shortly after he arrived in Damascus and was received by thousands of regime supporters.

“Every leader in every country should be aware of his share of responsibility. You are aware of yours,” Lavrov said to Assad as they kicked off the talks, according to English-language reports by Russian news agencies.

“We hope that the Arab people can live in peace and understanding,” the Russian envoy added.

The Syrian state news agency SANA said that the foreign minister arrived in Damascus amid a huge popular reception in appreciation of Russia’s support to Syria, it’s people and its reform program.

“Huge crowds flocked to … greet Minister Lavrov and express appreciation of Russia’s stances,” it said.

State television showed footage of a sea of people waving Syrian and Russian flags as they lined the streets of the capital, many chanting: “Thank you Russia, thank you China.”

“I want to thank Russia and China for their stand in support of the Syrian people,” one woman said, before crowds swarmed to greet Lavrov’s convoy.

Lavrov’s trip comes days after Russia vetoed along with China against a UN Security Council resolution condemning Syria.

The mission is taking place on the orders of Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Russian state media have said Lavrov is bearing a message from the Kremlin for Assad.

The foreign ministry said on Sunday the trip aimed to stabilize the escalating crisis in Syria by winning the “rapid implementation of much-needed democratic reforms” by the Assad regime.

Speaking to reporters on Monday, Lavrov refused to divulge the purpose of the mission.

“When you go on a mission on the order of the head of state then the purpose of the mission is usually only revealed to the person it is addressed to. If I tell you everything now, then what is the point?” he said.

~

  | February 7, 2012
Related articles

February 7, 2012 Posted by | Solidarity and Activism, Video | , , , | Leave a comment

Lebanese security officials seize suspicious cargo from US, Brazil

Press TV – February 7, 2012

Lebanon’s security officials say a suspicious cargo containing huge amounts of US dollars, guns, special passports and credit cards have been seized upon arrival in the Lebanese capital, Beirut, from the US and Brazil.

The items, packed in a number of chests and delivered via airmail, were discovered at Beirut’s airport, the Lebanese security officials said.

The chests also contained a list of both well-known and ordinary Lebanese citizens including a figure related to Salafi extremist groups. The security officials have summoned a number of the individuals, whose names were on the list, arresting some of them.

Beirut has redoubled security surveillance across the country following remarks by some Lebanese factions as well as widespread rumors about the presence of al-Qaeda in Lebanon.

Meanwhile, the Lebanese defense minister earlier confirmed that members of the al-Qaeda terrorist group, fighting against the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, have entered Syria through Lebanon.

Over the past few months, reports have circulated that caches of weapons have been smuggled to armed gangs in Syria through the Lebanese border.

~

See also:

February 7, 2012 Posted by | Corruption, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

Russia, China Vetoes Spur Western Hysteria, Indecent Comments

Al-Manar | February 6, 2012

Russia and China condemned Monday the angry Western reaction to its veto of a UN resolution over Syria where the US envoy expressed her “disgust” and the French Defense Minister said such countries deserve a “kick in the ass”!

“Some comments from the West on the UN Security Council vote, I would say, are indecent and bordering on hysteria,” Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told reporters in Moscow after a meeting with Bahraini counterpart Sheikh Khalid bin Ahmed al-Khalifa. Lavrov expressed frustration that Western states did not postpone Saturday’s UN Security Council vote until after his visit Tuesday to Damascus, where he will deliver a message to President Bashar al-Assad.

“Such hysterical comments are aimed at suppressing what is actually happening and what has happened,” said Lavrov. “It reminds me of the proverb: ‘he who gets angry is rarely right’,” he added.

Lavrov reaffirmed Russia’s position that the resolution was wrong to blame Assad’s regime for the “violence” and should have also taken aim at the so-called opposition. “In Syria there is more than one source of violence. There are several there,” he said.

China also denied US accusations and criticisms on Monday. Foreign ministry spokesman Liu Weimin told reporters that “China does not have its own selfish interest on the issue of Syria. We don’t shelter anyone, nor do we intentionally oppose anyone. We uphold justice and take a responsible attitude.”

A top Chinese diplomat said over the weekend that other nations had failed to take account of “reasonable” revision proposals suggested by Russia. Moscow has also defended its UN veto, saying Western powers had refused to reach a consensus. “The authors of the draft Syria resolution, unfortunately, did not want to undertake an extra effort and come to a consensus,” Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov wrote on Twitter.

France’s outspoken Defense Minister Gerard Longuet slammed China and Russia for their veto.”It is a disgrace for countries to refuse to assume their responsibilities,” Longuet told Europe 1 radio. “Frankly, there are some political cultures that deserve a kick in the ass.”

“Everyone must face up to their responsibilities. We must wake up those who accept conformity, and conformity that closes its eyes about a bloody dictator is unacceptable,” he said.

French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe said on Sunday that Europe will strengthen sanctions imposed on Damascus in a bid to boost pressure on the regime and called the dual veto a “moral stain” on the United Nations.

The US representative to the UN said she was “disgusted” by Russia and China’s veto, considering that the two countries’ stances were the results of particular interests.

Syria’s Representative to the United Nations Bashar Al-Jaafari said he respected her opinion. “However,” he asked: “Is she also disgusted of the 60 vetoes used in the past to prevent inclusive peace in the region and any just solution for the Arab-Israeli conflict?”

Related articles

February 6, 2012 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , , , | Leave a comment

Foolishly Ignoring the Arab League Report on Syria

By Sharmine Narwani | Al Akhbar | February 4, 2012

On December 19, 2011 the Syrian Arab Republic and the Arab League signed a protocol establishing an observer mission that would lead efforts to resolve the conflict in Syria and protect civilians in the process.

Almost immediately afterward, once-staunch advocates of this Arab League “intervention” in Syria began efforts instead to undermine the mission’s efforts.

Before inking the final deal, an Arab League official had warned me that certain member states – Qatar, most prominently – were setting up conditions that would preclude the participation of the Syrian government. But intense shuttle diplomacy at the eleventh hour produced a breakthrough: the mission was approved by the two parties, and the disappointed spoilers launched a public relations blitz to cast doubt on the mission’s participants, the Arab League’s capabilities and the investigation’s discoveries.

For the last month, we have heard allegations fly riotously about the Sudanese Head of Mission Lieutenant General Mohamed Ahmed Mustafa al-Dabi, now suddenly accused of war crimes. Rumors abounded about mission observers quitting their posts because of the “horrific” nature of the Syrian government’s onslaught against its civilians. International NGOs and a slew of western politicians even offered to “train” the mission observers – implicitly suggesting that Arabs lack observation and negotiation capabilities, or worse perhaps, that the observers need to be taught to view the Syrian conflict through external lenses.

It was hard to doubt these rumors entirely. The Arab League has, after all, refused to make the final monitors’ report available to the general media. But the report has suddenly popped up as an annex to the UN resolution on Syria currently being hotly debated at the Security Council. Most puzzling though, is that few Western or Arab journalists congregated at the United Nations this week are drawing attention to this critical document that provides insight into the very events contested at Council sessions.

Mission Report: The Good, Bad and Ugly

The full monitor’s report of the Arab League, as revealed here, refers in several instances to efforts aimed at undermining the mission and its activities:

“Since it began its work, the Mission has been the target of a vicious media campaign…that increased in intensity after the observers’ deployment. Some media outlets have published unfounded statements, which they attributed to the Head of the Mission. They have also grossly exaggerated events…Such contrived reports have helped to increase tensions among the Syrian people and undermined the observers’ work. Some media organizations were exploited in order to defame the Mission and its Head and cause the Mission to fail.”

The effort to “defame” the mission – ostensibly by opponents of the Syrian government – is a strange one. The report – while short – is professionally written, detailed, and highlights the difficulties inherent in covering a hard-fought conflict. It also criticizes the Syrian regime’s actions and shortcomings in sticking to the protocol and protecting civilians:

“On being assigned to their zones and starting work, the observers witnessed acts of violence perpetrated by Government forces and an exchange of gunfire with armed elements in Homs and Hama. As a result of the Mission’s insistence on a complete end to violence and the withdrawal of Army vehicles and equipment, this problem has receded.”

On the critical issue of political detainees, the report states:
“On 19 January 2012, the Syrian government stated that 3569 detainees had been released from military and civil prosecution services. The Mission verified that 1669 of those detained had thus far been released. It continues to follow up the issue with the Government and the opposition, emphasizing to the Government side that the detainees should be released in the presence of observers so that the event can be documented.” The report also verifies that an additional 3,843 detainees were released before Syrian President Bashar Assad issued a general amnesty decree on January 15. The government claims the number is 4,035.

But then the report veers sharply away from conventional narratives about the nature of the Syrian conflict by observing: “The Mission determined that there is an armed entity that is not mentioned in the protocol.”

Though the report attributes this development “to the excessive use of force by Syrian Government forces in response to protests,” it also points out that “in some zones, this armed entity reacted by attacking Syrian security forces and citizens, causing the Government to respond with further violence.”

The report then provides several examples of this:
“In Homs and Dera‘a, the Mission observed armed groups committing acts of violence against Government forces, resulting in death and injury among their ranks. In certain situations, Government forces responded to attacks against their personnel with force. The observers noted that some of the armed groups were using flares and armour-piercing projectiles.”

“In Homs, Idlib and Hama, the Observer Mission witnessed acts of violence being committed against Government forces and civilians that resulted in several deaths and injuries. Examples of those acts include the bombing of a civilian bus, killing eight persons and injuring others, including women and children, and the bombing of a train carrying diesel oil. In another incident in Homs, a police bus was blown up, killing two police officers. A fuel pipeline and some small bridges were also bombed.”

Media Coverage and Access In Syria

Notable too is the mission report’s contention that media reports on incidents of violence in Syria are often exaggerated and unverified:

“The Mission noted that many parties falsely reported that explosions or violence had occurred in several locations. When the observers went to those locations, they found that those reports were unfounded. The Mission also noted that, according to its teams in the field, the media exaggerated the nature of the incidents and the number of persons killed in incidents and protests in certain towns.”

The report also addresses criticism that the Syrian government restricts media access both into Syria and into the country’s hot spots. Complaints varied from media being allowed into the country for an insufficient “four days” to the regime demanding cumbersome “destination” itineraries, “operating permits” and “movement restrictions.”

The report provides a list naming the various individual journalists and media organizations entering Syria during the mission’s mandate, and concludes: “The Government had accredited 147 Arab and foreign media organizations. Some 112 of those organizations entered Syrian territory, joining the 90 other accredited organizations operating in Syria through their full-time correspondents.”

I should note that I was in Syria doing research for some articles during the mission’s investigations and that I am not on the list. While my own visa was arranged through a connected non-Syrian friend, I know of other writers who entered the country without incident. I spent my time there freely interviewing many opposition groups and individuals and was at no time accompanied by government minders – or monitored, to the best of my knowledge.

Less fortunate was Gilles Jacqiuer, the France 2 Channel cameraman who was killed during a visit to a pro-regime neighborhood in Homs. The French government has loudly sought to implicate the Syrian government in this killing, but the mission says that “mission reports from Homs indicate that the French journalist was killed by opposition mortar shells.”

 

The report also refers to controversial statements made by several monitors who abandoned their positions and publicly criticized the mission afterward. Probably the most memorable of these is Algerian Anwar Malek who famously claimed on Al Jazeera: “What I saw was a humanitarian disaster…The regime is not just committing one war crime, but a series of crimes against its people. The snipers are everywhere, shooting at civilians. People are being kidnapped. Prisoners are being tortured and none were released.”

 

The Arab League released a terse statement in response, saying Malek’s allegation “does not relate to the truth in any way,” and claiming instead, that “since he was assigned to the Homs team, Malek did not leave the hotel for six days and did not go out with the rest of the team into the field giving the excuse that he was sick.”

The report further expounds: “Some observers reneged on their duties and broke the oath they had taken. They made contact with officials from their countries and gave them exaggerated accounts of events. Those officials consequently developed a bleak and unfounded picture of the situation.”

Mission Success or Failure?

The report concludes with some pessimism: because of early logistical and other difficulties, the mission only actually operated for 23 days out of its month-long mandate. There is a need for better transportation, communication equipment – and most importantly – the necessary “media and political support” to complete its mandate.

On a positive note, the mission stresses that the Syrian regime “strived to help it succeed in its task and remove any barriers that might stand in its way. The Government also facilitated meetings with all parties. No restrictions were placed on the movement of the Mission and its ability to interview Syrian citizens, both those who opposed the Government and those loyal to it.”

Most critically, however, the report recommends a change in the Protocol’s mandate, namely, the “commitment of all sides to cease all acts of violence.” This, for the first time, introduces the notion that the Syrian government may not be entirely responsible for the civilian casualty numbers flaunted in media reports. And it is an important point – regular soldiers reportedly account for approximately 2,000 deaths in the country since March 2011.

But the observers warn: “Recently, there have been incidents that could widen the gap and increase bitterness between the parties. These incidents can have grave consequences and lead to the loss of life and property. Such incidents include the bombing of buildings, trains carrying fuel, vehicles carrying diesel oil and explosions targeting the police, members of the media and fuel pipelines. Some of those attacks have been carried out by the Free Syrian Army and some by other armed opposition groups.”

The “citizens” of Syria with whom they met – some of whom suffer from “extreme tension, oppression and injustice” – “believe the crisis should be resolved peacefully through Arab mediation alone, without international intervention. Doing so would allow them to live in peace and complete the reform process and bring about the change they desire.”

This is a narrative that is entirely missing in the mainstream media’s coverage of the Syrian crisis. The complicity of armed groups in escalating the violence initially started by the Syrian government; the compliance of the regime in advancing the Arab League Protocol’s demands; the rejection by ordinary citizens of internationalizing and militarizing the conflict.

Read the mission report. Conclude what you will. But admit that possibly the worst thing that can be done at this critical juncture is to suspend the Arab League mission’s investigations and interventions. If the mission is halted, civilians will lose protection in this conflict, facts will be hard to come by, and intermediaries on the ground in Syria will be nonexistent. Violence escalated after the mission took its leave to file the report. Inserting them back into the ring is unarguably the right course of action, particularly as it appears the UN Security Council is, today, at an impasse.

Sharmine Narwani is a commentary writer and political analyst covering the Middle East. You can follow Sharmine on twitter @snarwani.

Related articles

February 4, 2012 Posted by | Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , | Leave a comment

New York Times-Style Journalism

Stephen Lendman | February 2, 2012

Like other major media scoundrels, New York Times writers, op-ed commentators and editorials fail the test. They’re biased, shameless and irresponsible, especially on issues of war and peace.

Times tradition dates from 1896 when Ochs-Sulzberger family members took control. Thereafter, it’s played the lead print role distorting, censoring, and suppressing truth and full disclosure.

Its shameful record includes:

  • supporting wealth and power interests;
  • backing corporate interests against popular ones mattering most;
  • cheerleading imperial wars;
  • ducking major issues like government and corporate crimes, sham elections, America’s duopoly power, an unprecedented wealth gap, and lost civil liberties and social benefits; and
  • backing regime change in countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Iran and Syria, mindless of international laws prohibiting it.

The record of the “newspaper of record” produces misinformation masquerading as real news, information and opinion. Its slogan “All The News That’s Fit to Print” fails on truth and full disclosure.

Its war against Iran is longstanding. Against Syria, it’s more recent. It promotes regime change in both countries. On January 31, Times writer Rick Gladstone attacked them in his article headlined, “As Syria Wobbles Under Pressure, Iran Feels the Weight of an Alliance,” saying:

Pro-Western anti-Assad insurgents increased “pressure on (him) to step down….” As a result, “his main Middle East supporter, also finds itself under siege, undermining a once-powerful partnership and longtime American foe.”

If Assad falls, “Tehran would lose its conduit for providing military, financial, and logistical support to Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza.” Both Israeli opposition groups “considered terrorist organizations by Washington, have vast arsenals of rockets and other weapons.”

No evidence corroborates anti-Iran/Syria/Hezbollah/Hamas accusations. Ignored are sovereign country rights, international law, Lebanon’s legitimate Hezbollah-led government, and Hamas’ democratically elected Palestine one.

Neither espouses terrorism. Nor do Iran and Syria. In contrast, Washington and Israel pose grave terror threats. Both are nuclear armed and dangerous. They threaten preemptive strikes against invented threats. Neither has real ones.

Not according to Times-think. It stokes fear to promote conflict and regime change lawlessly.

Numerous articles and opinion pieces promote Washington’s imperial agenda. In 2011, Libya was target one. Before that Afghanistan and Iraq. Now it’s Iran and Syria.

On January 31, Times writer Neil MacFarquhar headlined, “At UN, Pressure Is on Russia for Refusal to Condemn Syria,” saying:

Both sides “skirmished over a draft Security Council resolution proposed by Morocco (serving Washington) that calls for (Assad) to leave power as the first step of a transition toward democracy.”

Ignored were international law issues. Among others, the 1933 Montevideo Convention explicitly prohibits interfering in the internal affairs of other countries. So does the UN Charter.

Nations doing so are criminally culpable. None are more guilty than Washington, Israel, and rogue NATO partners. In contrast, Iran and Syria threaten no one.

Yet MacFarquhar blamed Russia for blocking Security Council actions. In fact, Moscow’s resolute against Washington replicating its Libya model. Various language revisions left considerable wiggle room for war.

Russia’s determined to prevent it. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said “Russia will not support anything that is imposed on Syria.” He firmly opposes anti-Assad resolutions. He called replicating “another Libya” disastrous. China’s view is similar. Both have Security Council veto power. Lavrov promised to use it.

He and others also assailed Syria’s externally generated insurgency. Qatar’s Prime Minister Sheik Hamad bin Jassim bin Jabr-al Thani spuriously blamed Assad’s “fail(ure) to make any serious effort to cooperate with us.”

The Arab League’s Syrian Observers Report contradicts al Thani. Mission head General Mohammed Ahmed Mustafa al-Dabi praised Assad’s cooperation. He also said:

“Regrettably, some observers thought that their visit to Syria was for pleasure. In some instances, experts who were nominated were not qualified for the job, did not have prior experience, and were not able to (fulfill their) responsibility.”

On January 18, Arab League Secretary-General General Nabil Elaraby suspended their mission. He said violence undermined it, dismissing the competence issue al-Dabi raised and reports about about Assad’s cooperation.

He also ignored a “confidential account of the League’s mission.” Turtle Bay obtained it. It shows monitors lacked proper staff and equipment. As a result, their mission was undermined from inception.

On January 30, Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov insisted that Security Council members are briefed on its findings. Washington and rogue allies dismissed them out of hand. They call Arab League efforts a failure, saying their report adds nothing new.

One conclusion recommends Arab governments continue mediating for peaceful conflict resolution. Al-Dabi wrote:

“The mission… sensed the acute stress, injustice and oppression endured (by) Syrian citizens. Yet they are convinced that the Syrian crisis must be resolved peacefully, in the Arab context, and not internationalized so that they can live in peace securely, and achieve the desired reforms and changes.”

He also sharply criticized the ineptness and indifference of mission observers. He recommended reinforcing them with 100 more members, “preferabl(y) young with military background(s), 30 armored vehicles, protective vests, vehicle mounted cameras, and night vision binoculars.”

In addition, he said: “It should be stressed (that) performance shortcomings will be addressed and remedied with further practice and guidance, God Willing.”

He stressed no mission mandate for addressing a widening conflict, pitting heavily armed insurgents against Assad’s government. In Homs and Daraa, for example, opposition elements used “thermal bombs and anti-armor missiles” supplied by foreign governments.

Al-Dabi said “The mission was witness to acts of violence against government forces and citizens leading to death and injury of many. A case in point was the attack against a civilian bus which killed eight persons and injured others, including women and children.”

Foreign insurgents were responsible. The Times and other Western media scoundrels quoted monitor Anwar Walek’s reason for quitting the team. He called the mission a “farce,” saying:

“What I saw was a humanitarian disaster. The regime is not just committing one war crime, but a series of crimes against its people. The snipers are everywhere shooting at civilians. People are being kidnapped. Prisoners are being tortured and none were released.”

In response, al-Dabi said “Malek did not leave the hotel for six days and did not go out with the rest of the team into the field giving the excuse that he was sick.”

In other words, he saw nothing and lied. Media scoundrels regurgitated it. It’s standard practice, supporting lawless US imperialism against nonbelligerent countries.

Washington and rogue partners accused Assad of manipulating the monitoring mission to gain time to crush armed insurgents. Al-Dabi disagreed, saying their mission’s vital to Syria’s stability, adding:

“Any termination of the work of the mission after this short term will undermine the positive results – even if incomplete – that have been achieved so far. This may result in complete chaos on the ground (if) parties are neither qualified nor ready for the political process which aims at resolving the Syrian crisis.”

He, Assad, and most Syrians want peaceful resolution. Washington, rogue allies, and major media scoundrels promote war and regime change.

Civilians, of course, always suffer most and have grievously since early 2011. Washington and complicit allies share blame.

Assad’s unfairly condemned for their crimes. Don’t expect NYT writers, op-ed commentaries and editorials to explain. Truth and full disclosure’s not their long suit.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site.

Related articles

February 2, 2012 Posted by | Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , | Leave a comment

Arab Observer Chief Satisfied: “Allegations against Syria Mission Untrue”

Al-Manar | February 2, 2012

The head of Syria Arab observer delegation voiced satisfaction with the monitors’ effort on Thursday, stressing there was a campaign against the mission.

“I swear by God, I am fully satisfied with myself and with all those on the mission in Syria,” Sudanese General Mohammed Ahmed Mustafa al-Dabi told reporters on a brief return to his homeland.

“There is a campaign against the mission and against the head of the mission and there are some allegations against it, but all of this is untrue,” Dabi said, adding critics did not understand the observers’ role.

The 165 monitors were deployed in December after Syria agreed to an Arab League plan for a halt to the violence, for prisoners to be freed, tanks withdrawn from towns and on the free movement of observers and foreign media.

On Saturday, the Arab League said it was suspending its mission because of an “upsurge in violence”.

Earlier last week the six Gulf Arab states announced they would withdraw their observers because “the bloodshed and killings there continue (and after) the Syrian regime did not comply with implementing the Arab League decisions.” Dabi called it “war” and said he had seen “some evidence of torture”.

He declined comment on talks at the United Nations, which moved closer to agreement on action to halt the regime’s crackdown.

Arab ministers will meet February 11 to review the suspended observer mission to Syria.

Related articles

February 2, 2012 Posted by | Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , , | Leave a comment

Russia Slams Halt of Arab Observer Mission in Syria

Al-Manar | January 29, 2012

Russia condemned on Sunday the suspension of Arab monitoring mission in Syria, saying it was surprised by the decision taken by the Arab League.

The condemnation was announced by the Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov who said: “We would like to know why they are treating such a useful instrument in this way”.

“We are surprised that after a decision was taken on prolonging the observers’ mission for another month, some countries, particularly Persian Gulf countries, recalled their observers from the mission”, Lavrov said on a visit to Brunei.

“I would support an increased number of observers”, Lavrov was quoted by the Russian ITAR-TASS news agency.

Lavrov said that he did not back those Western countries that said the mission was pointless and that it was impossible to hold dialogue with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime.

“I think these are very irresponsible statements because trying to sabotage a chance to calm the situation is absolutely unforgivable,” Lavrov said, cited by the Interfax news agency.

The Arab League Secretary General Nabil al-Arabi announced on Saturday the halt of Syria observers’ mission because of escalating violence in the country.

Russian has repeatedly said it would oppose any UN Security Council resolution against Syria, stressing that such resolution would surpass the “red lines” it has drawn.

Related articles

January 29, 2012 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , , | Leave a comment

Saudi Arabia to recognize, fund Syrian National Council; Russia rejects Syria resolution

Al Akhbar | January 27, 2012

Saudi Arabia will recognize the Syrian National Council (SNC) as the “official representative” of the Syrian people amid a joint Western-Gulf Arab push to have President Bashar Assad removed, a senior member of the opposition group said on Friday.

“Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal told an SNC delegation he met in Cairo last week the kingdom will recognize the Council as the official representative of the Syrian people,” SNC executive council member Ahmad Ramadan told Kuwait’s Al-Rai newspaper.

Ramadan did not specify when Saudi will make the call, or whether it will be backed by its Gulf Arab allies in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC).

It was also reported in the UK’s The Times newspaper on Friday that Saudi Arabia and Qatar will begin funding the SNC as well as armed groups fighting the regime.

Gulf Arab states have taken a leading role in trying to oust the Syrian president, having this week announced the withdrawal of their members from the Arab League monitoring team in Syria.

Qatari Prime Minister Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber Al Thani is to officially present a Western-backed plan to UN Security Council ambassadors in New York that will request Assad hand over power to his deputy, while a unity government is formed to oversee a full transition.

The improving ties between the GCC and SNC has aroused concerns among some corners of the Syrian opposition that fear Gulf states will turn Syria into a battleground against arch rival Iran.

The GCC oppose the democratic aspirations of the Arab Spring protests engulfing the region, and sent troops into neighboring Bahrain last year to crush a similar uprising there.

It is also unclear how representative the Istanbul-based SNC is of the protesters within Syria, and the level of contact between the internal revolution and external opposition groups.

Meanwhile, Russia has preempted the West and the GCC by already declaring its proposed UN resolution as “unacceptable.” … Full article

Related articles

January 27, 2012 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »