Posted on

Hard questions need to be asked in Syria

http://bit.ly/1ceWlmY
Hard Questions Must Be Asked In Syria
New Matilda, 8 August 2013
Joseph Wakim

Who committed the Syrian gas attack? Unless the UN can do its work, we’ll never know. To condemn the regime without evidence is to risk repeating the mistakes made in Iraq, writes Joseph Wakim

One glaring question has been avoided in the smoke surrounding the Ghouta video of chemical warfare: what if such an atrocity was committed by the anti-Assad forces, our de facto allies?

This taboo question poses many practical and political problems, especially with a fractured opposition without a clear leader who can be prosecuted. Human rights advocates such as Amnesty International have demanded that the United Nations Security Council refer this incident to the International Criminal Court (ICC). But war crimes need to be brought to trial without prejudice, regardless of the culprit.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd urged that “we get the facts absolutely right first”, evoking the 2003 Iraqi invasion that was “based on, frankly, a lie”. Opposition Leader Tony Abbott wasn’t as cautious, describing the attack as “the kind of horror that we’ve come to expect from one of the worst regimes in the world.”

Abbott’s pre-emptive comments echo British Foreign Secretary William Hague, who urged supporters of the Syrian regime to “wake up to … its murderous and barbaric nature”. Such comments show contempt for the 20-strong team of UN chemical weapons inspectors, led by Swedish expert Ake Sellstrom, who arrived in Syria last Sunday and who have been granted access to visit the site — despite being welcomed by sniper fire, a hallmark of the rebels.

Haigh’s provocations were predictable, coming from the country that hosts the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, an anti-Assad propaganda front which rarely reports on atrocities against Christian minorities and is run by a one man band, Rami Abdulrahman.
Rudd need not reminisce over the “weapons of mass destruction” propaganda of 10 years ago. Syria provides more recent examples. Three months ago, UN Commission of Inquiry investigator Carla del Ponte announced that “according to testimonies we have gathered, the rebels have used chemical weapons, making use of sarin gas.” To want to ask these hard questions about the armed rebels is not a cynical conspiracy, but a recognition of the historical reality of the Syrian conflict.

Del Ponte’s bombshell gave credence to the counter-narrative that the rebels were provoking US president Barack Obama to trigger his contingency plan, announced in August 2012, in the event that chemical weapons were utilised: “a red line for us … that would change my calculus.”

With the latest Ghouta story, could the rebels be yet again waving the red rag to the US to charge into Syria like a raging bull, as promised a year ago? Obama issued this ultimatum not only “to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground”, but would he sanction an attack on the rebels, his allies, after granting the Free Syrian Army US$250 million in “non-lethal aid” in April 2012?

If the UN inspectors verify that chemical weapons were indeed deployed by the Syrian government, then president Bashar al Assad should be prosecuted for this crime against humanity in the ICC. If it was committed by rogue elements within Assad’s army, or his Shabiha, they should likewise be held accountable, just as we have seen with rogue personnel within the Afghan and American armies. But if the UN inspectors incriminate the rebels, who exactly is taken to court?

What if the Free Syrian Army deny that it was them and blame one of the many armed anti-Assad jihadists, each following fatwas from different heads in different countries with different supply chains of finances and weapons? Would such a scenario incriminate the sources of the weapons even if this is Saudi Arabia, Turkey or America? How would the ICC prosecute the “head office” of al Qaeda, Jabhat al Nusra, Liwa al Islam brigade or the cocktail of rebel groups and terrorist groups, some already fighting each other?

Clearly, this is far from a “civil war” and threats of international intervention ring hollow given the presence of foreign mercenaries already on the ground, some uploading their beheadings, cannibalism and infidel cleansing on YouTube for the world to see.

There are many reasons to be cautious of the amateur videos that have provoked global condemnation. Why are all the quoted eye-witnesses in the reports “opposition activists” rather than ordinary Syrian citizens? Why would the Syrian government ostensibly invite the weapons inspectors then flagrantly mock them with an act that is both genocidal and suicidal?
Why are the carers not wearing protective clothing to prevent contamination? Why has Doctors Without Borders counted 355 deaths, while the rebels say more than 1300?

Neighbouring Israel triggered the first chemical weapons alert in April using their satellite technology. Israel is concerned about both how Syria’s arsenal might be deployed in the current conflict, and the possibility of weapons falling into the wrong hands in a post-Assad regime. Israeli Minister for Intelligence and Strategic Affairs, Yuval Steinitz, is understandably critical of the UN: “probing the use of chemical weapons without investigating who used it (sic) is ridiculous”. However, this call for UN intervention is ironic, given Israel’s refusal to join the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, refusal to confirm or deny possessing nuclear bombs, and the UN General Assembly resolution 174 calling on Israel to open its own nuclear facilities to inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

As Australia prepares to take our place in the UN Security Council in September, we have an historic opportunity to be a circuit breaker. We could push for unarmed dialogue among Syrian citizens, free from foreign intervention. We could engage with the newly elected Iranian president Hassan Rouhani, who has joined the global condemnation, given his country’s experience of chemical warfare with Iraq in the 1980’s: “We completely and strongly condemn the use of chemical weapons because the Islamic Republic of Iran is itself a victim of chemical weapons.” Australia can clear the smoke by asking the right questions.

Posted on

US should leave Syria decision to UN

http://bit.ly/1dtVkvx

US should leave Syria decision to UN
30 August 2013
Herald Sun

THE narrative is etched: despotic dictator poisons his own people under the nose of the UN weapons inspectors.

This is credible if one inhales all the pollen from the Arab Spring stereotypes of mad men crushing their people who crave to be a Western democracy.

Like Egypt’s Mubarak and Libya’s Gaddafi, Syria’s Assad was supposed to topple like a domino weeks after the Syrian inferno was ignited in March 2011. Despite being bombarded from all borders with mercenaries, weapons and finances, the Syrian Government still stands almost 30 months later.

In fact, it has been gaining ground from its armed opposition and jihadists. So why would it suddenly be so stupid to commit an act that is both genocidal and suicidal?

The answer may be that the narrative is a naive narrative and we need to clear the smoke by asking the right questions.

First, if US intelligence services overheard a Syrian Defence Ministry official “in panicked phone calls with the leader of a chemical weapons unit, demanding answers for a nerve agent strike”, why is a translated transcript not shared as “undeniable” evidence of the culpability of the Government or any rogue offshoots?

Were the phone calls conceding culpability by the military, or panicking at the news of the horrendous attack on sleeping children? Such answers would protect the US from accusations of repeating the “weapons of mass destruction” pretext for another Iraq-style illegal invasion.
With the civil war in Iraq 10 years later, it is evident that the invasion has created everything but peace.

Second, given the indicators that opposition groups possess sarin nerve gas, why are the US and its allies adamant that only the Government’s forces can perpetrate this large-scale attack?

In May, UN Independent Commission of Inquiry on Syria investigator Carla del Ponte announced that “according to testimonies we have gathered, the rebels have used chemical weapons, making use of sarin gas”. That same month, Turkish authorities seized sarin gas and other ammunition from Jabhat al Nusra, an affiliate of al-Qaida, being smuggled into Syria.

In June, the Syrian military seized two barrels of sarin gas from rebels in Hama. Such announcements challenge the narrative about the goodies and the baddies.
Third, how could a Government that denies culpability prove what it ostensibly did not do?

Despite the charge of guilty until proven innocent, which does not apply in the West, Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal al-Miqdad claims he has presented relevant evidence to the 20-strong team of UN chemical weapons inspectors in Syria, led by Swedish expert Professor Ake Sellstrom.

Although this “jury” is still out, they have been dismissed by the US and its allies, who have already slammed down the gavel and returned their verdict: only the Government is guilty as all red lines have been crossed.

Of course, people cannot be blamed for believing the verdict about morality and humanity, as the Syrian public relations machine has never really deemed it necessary to articulate a credible case to the world.

Hence, the loudest voices prevail and Syria has only its own arrogance to blame.
Fourth, if Syrian soldiers “inhaled poisonous gas” and were hospitalised after they found stocks of chemicals and gas masks in tunnels near the targeted Ghouta district, why would the US and its allies oppose the UN inspectors establishing all facts?

Syrian UN ambassador Bashar Ja’afari wrote to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon requesting that the team “investigate three heinous incidents” in the three days after last Wednesday’s attack. The UN team may reach a different verdict to that of the US.

What if they discover underground tunnels and a supply chain leading back to the multinational sponsors of this so-called “civil war”? Would the global focus shift from the “red lines” to the red faces of those who may have something to hide?

FIFTH, if US President wants the Syrian Government to receive only a “shot across the bow – it better not do it again”, could this self-appointed sheriff pour oil on fire? When a Syrian President has outlived all Western expectations, does treating him like a naughty boy really make sense?

It is likely the US President has put himself in a corner. This is the one-year anniversary of his promise to unleash his “contingency plans” if chemical weapons were utilised: “. . . a red line for us that would change my calculus.”

The red rag has been waved and he now has to charge, otherwise his pledge will evaporate into a hollow threat. Given Obama’s $250 million financial investment of “non-lethal weapons” to the Free Syrian Army, and its recent loss of ground as it competes for territory among a variety of jihadist groups, the desperation has intensified.

Obama needs to regain relevance in the Middle East post-Arab Spring. Jokes abound about backing the Islamists in Syria, but not in Egypt. Jokes abound about calling the Iraqi jihadists “insurgents” but the Syrian jihadists “rebels”. Jokes abound about the US arming terrorists while Syria fights them.

With Australia assuming the presidency of the UNSC in September, we have a historic opportunity to leverage a real “game-changer”.

Rather than relying on the smokescreens of secret intelligence, sabre rattling and counter threats, we could provide a civilised voice by moving to mandate the UN team to establish all the facts, above ground and underground, including culpability and supply chains.

Once guilt is established, the UNSC is in a better position to establish consensus and sanctions. This simple logic may smoke out what the hasty voices may be hiding.

Posted on

Carr Calls For Syria Assassination

http://bit.ly/QfnBXg
Published on newmatilda.com (http://newmatilda.com)
________________________________________
10 Oct 2012

Carr Calls For Syria Assassination

By calling for the murder of Bashar al-Assad, Foreign Minister Bob Carr has shown both his hypocrisy and his lack of understanding about our “allies” in the Syrian uprising, writes Joseph Wakim

Public figures must think twice before commenting about someone’s death.

Veteran broadcaster Alan Jones has learned this lesson after “cyber democracy” took Australian decency into its own hands. They have inscribed an epitaph for his career: you reap what you sow.

But it appears that Foreign Minister Bob Carr has learnt nothing about the volatility of the “death sentence”. His “brutal and callous” call for the assassination of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad on ABC Four Corners on Monday was utterly un-Australian, and warrants immediate sanction by Julia Gillard.

Our foreign minister represents a liberal democracy where murder is a crime and the death sentence has long been outlawed. Assassination should not be part of Australia’s strategy to end the proxy war between Iran and Israel that is fought on Syrian soil.

Carr’s comments are yet another example of the foreign minister is trying to force-fit the Libyan template over Syrian territory.

Carr’s rationale that “an assassination combined with a major defection … is what is required to get, one, a ceasefire, and, two, political negotiations” smacks of dangerous naivety. It ignores the fact that to the president and his supporters, Syria is fighting its own “war on terror” and defending its sovereign territory. This religious war has been proudly sponsored by the US and its Gulf allies — the undemocratic kingdoms of Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Rather than creating a cease fire, an assassination would escalate the war beyond the five volatile Syrian borders. Does Carr seriously think that Iran, Russia and China would sit idly by as yet another regime is militarily toppled?

Carr concludes that “we’ve got nothing to do but trust the spirit of the Arab Spring”. The embers of the Arab Spring were actually extinguished long ago by what he himself calls “religious fanatics … who want another form of dictatorship”. The “jihadists,” who answer to fatwas from Saudi sheiks for a holy war to ethnically cleanse Syria from non-Sunnis, want a Salafist theocracy, not a secular democracy. Ironically, Carr’s call for an assassination aligns him with Sheikh Muhammad al Zughbey — “your jihad against this infidel criminal and his people is a religious duty”.

When asked about the presence of Islamic extremists or al Qaeda in the uprising, Carr insists that “the truth is … nobody knows … outside Damascus, observation doesn’t exist”. His sources are all sworn enemies of the Syrian regime — The Friends of Syria, Gulf leaders and Western leaders — and of course they will not concede that extremists have hijacked the uprising.

Inside Syria, observation and monitoring does exist and the al-Qaeda presence has been repeatedly revealed. Journalist Robert Fisk interviewed so-called Syrian rebels inside a Syrian military prison in August, only to find that most were “recycled” foreign mercenaries. Inconvenient facts and counter-narratives such as this cannot be dismissed as pro-Assad propaganda, although Fisk’s piece in particular has drawn some criticism, including from Syrian political dissident Yassin Al-Haj Saleh.

Moreover, Carr has an immediate opportunity to be enlightened by a visiting Syrian nun who has been at the centre of the violence, tending to the war wounded. Despite repeated requests to meet with him, Mother Agnes-Mariam from St James Catholic monastery in Homs has been shunned. She has been forced to flee to Lebanon after being warned that the rebel forces, our allies and future assassins, plotted to abduct her.

Why? Because she was outspoken about the “aggressive armed gangs … abducting people, beheading, bringing terror even to schools”. Like Fisk, she confirms that only about one in 20 rebels are Syrian. She has witnessed how the uprising “steadily became a violent Islamist expression against a liberal secular society” and testifies to a “hidden will to empty the Middle East of its Christian presence”. This darker truth belies the “spirit of the Arab Spring” in Carr’s fantasy.

Unlike Carr, Mother Agnes has a peaceful solution that is gaining momentum — Mussalaha (reconciliation) — a grass roots movement for dialogue and negotiation among Syrian citizens of all ethnic and religious backgrounds who “reject sectarian violence and are tired of war”.

Unlike Carr, her method not assassination and defection, but disarmament — “freeing them of this massive foreign interference and this media instigation for violence”. As part of her international peace mission to the Vatican and the EU, she will lead a delegation of Nobel Prize laureates to Syria next month.

It is abhorrent that Carr links assassination with “what Kofi Annan said was essential”. Like Mother Agnes, Annan promoted disarmament.
Above the negotiation table, the US-Saudi-Qatar axis talked about a political solution, but under the table they sabotaged his “peace plan” with a lucrative supply chain of arms, while criticising those who vetoed more military solutions.

Why is Carr afraid to meet with Mother Agnes? Because she will disarm him of his “just war” theory, and force him to face the facts that he has put us in bed with the terrorists. She may even enlighten him that it was not Libya that endured 17 years of civil war, as he stated, but Lebanon — for 15 years. Like Alan Jones, he should know better, but chooses not to.
________________________________________
Source URL: http://newmatilda.com/2012/10/10/carr-calls-syria-assassination
Links:
[1] http://www.theaustralian.com.au/media/radio-broadcaster-alan-jones-blames-cyber-bullying-for-commercials-being-pulled-from-show/story-e6frg996-1226490322476
[2] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-10-04/interview-with-bob-carr/4302980
[3] http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/middle-east/syria/120814/syria-us-proxy-war-iran-saudi-arabia-qatar-sunni-shiite
[4] http://mideastmedia.blogspot.com.au/2011/07/provocative-sheikhs-views-aired.html
[5] http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-syrias-road-from-jihad-to-prison-8100749.html
[6] http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContentP/18/51930/Books/Syrian-writer-Robert-Fisk-is-indoctrinated-by-Syri.aspx
[7] http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/christians-emptied-from-middle-east/story-e6frg6so-1226489418086
[8] http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocus/Syria/press.asp?NewsID=1236&sID=41

Posted on

Syria Needs Elections, Not Arms

http://newmatilda.com/2012/08/03/syria-needs-elections-not-arms
3 Aug 2012

Now that Kofi Annan has resigned as special envoy, the only solution left in Syria is a presidential election. But internationally sponsored violence will complicate things, writes Joseph Wakim
If Syrians re-elected their president in a free and fair election, would the rebels and their sponsors pack up and go home?

Imagine if the UN Supervision Mission in Syria extended its mandate to beyond August to monitor a national referendum on the Syrian presidency. Threats, violence and boycotts could be prevented, and all eligible citizens could vote free from fear or favour.

We have seen UN Peacekeeping missions provide security, technical, logistical and educational support for referendums and elections at polling stations in volatile areas. During the past two decades, the UN has provided such assistance to over 100 countries such as Cambodia in May 1993, East Timor in August 2001 and South Sudan in January 2011.

Syrian citizens already cast their votes at the unprecedented multi-party elections on 7 May, where 7125 candidates, including 710 women, competed for the 250 seat People’s Assembly.

But the last presidential election was held in May 2007 and “officially” gave Bashar Al-Assad 97.6 per cent approval to continue for his second seven year term. This was farcical given that he was unopposed. Yet since the Arab Spring ignited Syria in March 2011, tens of thousands of civilians, soldiers and rebels have perished in an international proxy war.

Syria has become increasingly militarised thanks to Russia, China and Iran, who are propping up and protecting the regime, while US, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and al Qaeda are arming, aiding and abetting the rebels, suicide bombers, terrorists and their mercenaries. It was revealed this week that the Obama Administration was collaborating with Saudi Arabia and Qatar to channel military and communications aid to a secret “nerve centre” in Adana, a Turkish city about 100 kilometres from the Syrian border.

It is no surprise that UN Special Envoy Kofi Annan has announced his resignation from the post. He must have been tempted to lose his diplomatic demeanour and overturn the “negotiation table”. These key stakeholder nations talk about a political solution but under the table they sabotage his “peace plan” with a lucrative supply chain of arms. Hence he criticised the “clear lack of unity” and “finger pointing and name calling in the Security Council”. In case there was any question about which side Annan was referring to, White House spokesman Jay Carney was quick to blame Russia and China.

While the disparate rebel groups and their sponsors demand that Assad must step down to save Syria from further bloodshed, the terror tactics of the rebels have alienated citizens who support the president. A circuit breaker could be brokered if all parties disarm and the next presidential election is brought forward from 2014.

If the Syrian National Council ostensibly represents the majority, then it must honour the free will of the citizens and look forward to greater legitimacy. If the Assad regime ostensibly retains the confidence of its citizens, then it should have nothing to hide or fear, and should look forward to vindication.

It is already on the public record that the president will only stay if it is the will of his people, not the Baath Party. In a February 2012 referendum that saw the end of the Baath Party monopoly, Assad also ushered in a reform that would cap any president to two seven-year terms.

Assad should order his supporters to fully cooperate with the UN Monitors. If he fails to gain the majority of votes, he should honour the will of the citizens and step down, facing the consequences under national and international laws — whether it be amnesty, exile or trial.

Similarly, the Syrian National Council should order the Free Syrian Army and all its international collaborators to back off, so the voice of the people can prevail. If Assad is re-elected, then those claiming to be the legitimate opposition must equally honour the will of Syria’s citizens.

It means the Syrian National Council may become a political party in the new pluralistic political system. The Free Syrian Army would disarm, perhaps with an amnesty, and disband immediately. The remaining Salafists, terrorists, suicide bombers and mercenaries would “return to sender”.

Most importantly, their international sponsors such as the USA, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey would have to honour the UN monitored result and immediately cut supply to the rebel militias. Who could argue with this fair proposal?

The USA does. While they are ostensibly interested in democracy and peace, their unspoken agenda has nothing to do with Syria. It has everything to do with two other countries: Iran and Israel, which were prominently in the news before the Syrian uprising but have since disappeared off the radar.

The US insists Iran is making a nuclear weapon, despite the country’s insistence that their nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. Israel is threatened by the possibility of another nuclear power in the region, especially given Iran’s allies on its border — Syria and Hezbollah.

So if the US does not wish to provoke the ire of a potentially nuclear Iran, as it may indirectly endanger Israel, what is the next best contingency to protect Israel? Weaken Syria by engineering a “civil war” so that Syria’s army, president and borders are exhausted, and the country self implodes into a non threatening neighbour.

Of course, what will be said in public would be more benevolent: we cannot accept the outcome of the UN monitored presidential election because those in exile or who have sought asylum in Turkey could not vote. The Syrian people have lived in fear under a dictatorship for over 40 years, when voting against the president was suicidal.

Only in hot water can we flush out the true colors of this “civil war”.

Posted on

http://bit.ly/LPcHWO
27 June 2012

Arab Spring model not a Syrian reality
Published in The Drum, ABC On Line, 28 June 2012

Foreign Minister Bob Carr has adopted a pre-emptive and partisan position on the Syrian situation.

This may not reflect the will of the majority of Syrian citizens, nor the good will of the UN Special Envoy Kofi Annan, nor indeed the majority of Australian citizens of Syrian descent.
Rather than being peacemakers in a polarized situation, Carr has cornered Australia into a position of a provocateur.

After the al Houla infanticide on May 29, he jumped the gun and expelled the Syrian diplomats, long before the UN investigated the facts. This week, he has ramped up the anti-Syrian sanctions, which are largely tokenistic given the minimal trade between the two countries.

He challenges Russian president Vladimir Putin to put ‘pressure on Assad to walk off the stage’. Knowing that Russia supplies arms to Syria, why not also put pressure on the US-Saudi-Qatar axis to stop supplying arms to the fractured opposition groups? This way, his efforts to demilitarise the conflict and help bring the parties to the UN negotiating table can be taken more seriously.

On March 21, 2001, the Syrian revolution was heralded with graffiti by unarmed teenagers in Dara’a, ‘the people want the regime to fall’, a copycat mantra inspired by the Arab Spring in North Africa. This ember that drifted into Syria was swiftly snuffed by the local authoritarian guard and the youth were imprisoned. The Syrian president squandered a historic opportunity to listen to the grievances of these sons of Syria. He could have orchestrated a political evolution instead of a bloody revolution. He could have morally disarmed the opposition, both exiled and resident.

President Assad misread all the writing on the wall, and believed that he was immune from this social tsunami sweeping across the Arab region. Two months before this trigger, he declared that ‘Syria is stable’ because he was ‘very closely linked to the beliefs of the people’. In his March 30 speech to parliament, he could have opened serious dialogue to harness the angst rather than peddling conspiracy theories. Instead, he wrote off dissenting voices as terrorists which has ironically become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

By his own admission, ‘Syria is geographically and politically in the middle of the Middle East’, sharing borders with Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey, Iraq and Israel, so he should have been ultra cautious about Syria’s vulnerability.

The unarmed teenage message has been usurped by the militant Syrian National Council (SNC), who make the teenagers look like kittens.

Today, even the voices of the SNC have been hijacked by the Salafist Sheikhs proclaiming Fatwas and jihads against all the pro-Assad infidels. The jihadists do not take man-made orders from the SNC in Istanbul. They take divine orders direct from Saudi Arabia.

Their rants are viral on YouTube and they make the fractured SNC sound like pussy cats in a lion’s den. The neat Arab Spring template of goodies and baddies fails to fit the reality on the ground in Syria.

On one hand, Assad is sanctioned for failing to exercise restraint against the armed opposition groups.

On the other hand, his citizens criticise him for failing to defend them against the invading jihadists.

It is exactly one year since Sheikh Adnan Arour declared that ‘for those [Alawites] who violated all that is sacred, by Allah the Great, we shall mince them in meat grinders and feed their flesh to the dogs’.

Similarly Sheikh Muhammad al Zughbey proclaimed that ‘your jihad against this infidel criminal and his people is a religious duty’ and that Alawites are ‘more infidel than the Jews and Christians’. It is no surprise that original teenage slogan has been replaced with a sectarian one ‘Christians to Beirut, Alawites to the grave’.

The Arab adage ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’ creates bizarre bed fellows. Last May, we celebrated when the Al Qaeda leader was buried at sea, yet now we collaborate with them as they embark upon ethnic cleansing.

The Salafists taint the reputation of the Sunni ‘guardians’ in Saudi Arabia, with their threats of hell for Assad loyalists and promises of a (promiscuous) paradise for martyrs.

With the Fatwas ‘on tap’ making mockery of his country, Sheikh Ali al-Hikmi of the Saudi Council of
Senior Scholars deployed an anti-ballistic missile with his counter-fatwa forbidding all jihad in Syria.
On February 7, Dr Yusuf al Qaradawi, president of the International Union of Muslim Scholars, issued another ‘damage control’ fatwa, co-signed by 107 other Muslim scholars, declaring the ‘need to protect the ethnic and religious minorities which have lived for more than a thousand years as part of the Syrian people’.

Ironically, the more the Salafists terrorise Syria, the more the Syrians cling to Bashar al Assad as their saviour, which feeds directly into the Salafist claim that these infidels worship Assad above Allah.
However, these jihadist calls continue to echo in Australia through the social media with impunity and their followers have sought to terrorise Australian Alawis with petrol bombs, vilifying graffiti and death threats. The targeted citizens believe that Mr Carr’s anti-Assad stance has validated and unleashed the anti-Alawi sentiments, which he needs to untangle and condemn.

There is nothing civil about the war in Syria – it is a proxy war to protect Israel from a nuclear Iran. This was confirmed when Israel’s defence minister Ehud Barak declared that toppling Assad ‘will be a major blow to the radical axis [Iran] … It’s the only kind of outpost of the Iranian influence in the Arab world … and it will weaken dramatically both Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza’.

President Assad should have treated the writing on the wall as a sectarian inscribed prophecy, not as secular erasable graffiti. Even if another UN monitored election voted Assad back into presidency. Even if a UN supervised political negotiation is brokered, where the exiled opposition can table their demands, many of which have already been met. His enemies have already written the next chapter of history, where he has been written off.

It is the height of arrogance to assume that we know the will of Syrian citizens, who are increasingly demanding stability over democracy. We cannot be hell bent on regime change and peace brokers at the same time.

Posted on

This isn’t a civil war

http://newmatilda.com/2012/06/14/this-isnt-a-civil-war

Published in New Matilda, 14 June 2012

This Isn’t A Civil War

UN peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous refers to the “civil war” in Syria, but the Assad government insists it’s “an armed conflict to uproot terrorism”. I know from the “civil war” in my birthplace Lebanon that there was nothing civil about it. The conflict was militarised by a cocktail of foreign influences peddling their own agendas. Syria is less like Libya and becoming more like war-time Lebanon.

When Foreign Minister Bob Carr expelled Syria’s diplomats from Canberra on 29 May, he was singing his small solo in a well orchestrated international chorus demanding foreign intervention in Syria. The US squarely blamed the Syrian government for the al-Houla atrocity, even before it was revealed that fewer than 20 deaths resulted from shelling.

After the massacre at Mazraat al-Qubair, US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton reiterated her alternative to the Annan peace plan in her call for a “post Assad transition strategy, including Assad’s full transfer of power … [to a] fully representative and inclusive interim government which leads to free and fair elections, a ceasefire to be observed by all”. Contrast this with the UN Observer Mission heads who were cautious in criticising “everyone with a gun”.

Despite the presence of al Qaeda terrorists, Libyan rebels and trained mercenaries in Syria, the US alliance was adamant that only the Syrian government would have been capable committing or commissioning the massacre. Regardless of serious claims that these atrocities were engineered to incriminate the Assad government, Clinton is insistent: The international community cannot sit idly by, and we won’t.

Noting the US position on the pro-democracy movements in other Arab states such as Yemen and occupied Palestine, cynicism towards US compassion for Arab human rights is understandable.
The US “transition strategy” is a euphemism for unauthorised military intervention. It abandons UN Special Envoy Kofi Annan’s six point peace plan, which calls for a “Syrian-led political process” and “cessation of armed violence in all its forms by all parties”, not only by the Syrian government, but by “the opposition and all relevant elements”.

These elements are not only Russia and Iran, who supply arms to Syria, but also the US, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Turkey, Libya, Israel and al Qaeda who aid and abet the armed opposition groups.
The US has provided “non lethal assistance” and “communications equipment” alongside its oil-rich sheikdom allies Saudi Arabia and Qatar who committed $100 million of weapons and cash after the Syrian National Council “repeatedly called for the arming of the Free Syrian Army”.

Like the Syrian National Council who vowed “we will never sit and talk [with] Butcher Bashar”, this fits neatly into the US “transition strategy” which opposes negotiation and supports militarisation. This effectively sabotages the doomed Annan plan, as US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice sings propagates the case for acting outside the UN Security Council’s authority once again.
Hence the recent 48 hour ultimatum to abandon the ceasefire by the Free Syrian Army’s Colonel Qassim Saadeddine was a cynical stunt. The rebels threaten civil war if the Syrian army dishonors the ceasefire they themselves have never kept.

Since the Annan ceasefire was declared on 10 April, overall casualties have decreased by 36 percent, but risen for Syrian government personnel and army troops with human rights groups estimating over 1000 Syrian soldiers killed since the theoretical ceasefire.

Clinton’s rhetoric about “free and fair elections” turns a blind eye to the 7 May Syrian elections which reformed the constitution to allow for political pluralism. 7200 candidates, including 710 women, competed for 250 seats across 15 electoral constituencies. She ignores the citizens threatened by armed opposition groups who demanded that the elections be boycotted.

The Free Syrian Army prefers a NATO-style intervention (UNSC resolution 1973) with “all necessary means” and a “no fly zone”, but the US knows that the armed opposition groups are “weak and divided”, with no territorial base, and prefers the Yemeni model; a stable and autocratic regime to control the diverse masses.
Replacing Assad with a puppet would suit the agenda of their their Saudi-Israeli sponsors, who both fear a nuclear Shi’te Iran. This wrongly assumes that Assad is the obstacle to peace, rather than the Baath party that preceded and propped him up.

The most plausible explanation for the US led call for military intervention on humanitarian grounds comes from former US Assistant Secretary of State James Rubin. In his analysis, the US led alliance is about targeting Iran to protect Israel.

Damascus is merely the bridge and missing link between Tehran and Tel Aviv. As Israel fears losing its nuclear monopoly, toppling Assad would mean that “Iran would no longer have a Mediterranean foothold from which to threaten Israel”.

This was confirmed when Israel’s Defence Minister Ehud Barak recently declared that toppling Assad “will be a major blow to the radical axis [Iran] … It’s the only kind of outpost of the Iranian influence in the Arab world … and it will weaken dramatically both Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza”.

Hence threats of looming foreign military intervention are hollow. With or without the Security Council’s blessing, proxy wars hijacked the unarmed pro-democracy movement long ago.

Posted on

Australia’s Naivety On Syria

New Matilda, 4 June 2012

http://newmatilda.com/2012/06/04/australias-naivety-syria
Australia’s Naivety On Syria

Expelling Syrian diplomats from Australia over the al Houla massacre assumes the Assad regime is to blame. The Syrian situation is too complex to act without evidence, writes Joseph Wakim

Spot the three fundamental flaws in this statement by Foreign Minister Bob Carr after he expelled the two most senior Syrian diplomats from Australia:

“Getting Damascus to move towards a ceasefire and to engage in political dialogue with its opposition is the one game plan we’ve got here.”

First, by blaming the Syrian government for the al-Houla atrocity in the Homs Province, he was at odds with the two other diplomats from the UN: Major General Robert Mood, Head of the UN Observer Mission and Joint Special Envoy for the UN/Arab League and former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan.

Mood, in his statements after the al-Houla tragedy that saw 108 civilians killed, including 49 children, exercised caution.

“I should not jump to conclusions” he said, urging both the government and the “armed opposition to refrain from violence in all its forms”.

Likewise, Annan issued a condemnation of this “appalling crime… not only for the government but for everyone with a gun”.

If both diplomats remain unconvinced that this massacre could be attributed totally to the Syrian government while the evidence is still being investigated, why has our foreign minister jumped the gun on our behalf?

After the Syrian National Council “repeatedly called for the arming of the Free Syrian Army” the United States pledged “non-lethal” communications equipment while the oil rich states of Saudi Arabia and Qatar committed US$100 million. The military toys are now in the hands of the boys, many of whom are non-Syrian youth recruited from neighbouring countries.

How can we “move towards a ceasefire” if Annan’s six week old, six point plan is undermined by this foreign funding to militarise the conflict? Similarly, Russia should cease to supply arms to the Syrian government.

Second, after Syrian National Army founder Osama al-Munjid vowed “we will never sit and talk” with “butcher Bashar”, how can our foreign minister seriously advocate the possibility of political dialogue? If the SNA are hell bent on toppling this “murderous regime”, they have no interest in negotiation, and will seek every opportunity to incriminate the government to trigger a Libya-style NATO intervention.

Hence the recent 48-hour ultimatum to abandon the ceasefire by the Free Syrian Army’s Colonel Qassim Saadeddine was a cynical stunt. They have no serious intention to engage in political dialogue, yet demand the government “hand over power to the Syrian people”. This is ironic given the 7 May parliamentary elections in Syria. They threaten civil war if the Syrian army does not honour the ceasefire which they themselves have dishonoured.

The stalemate is compounded when the Syrian president insists that there would be “no dialogue” with opposition groups which “seek foreign intervention”.

Our foreign minister needs to use the word opposition in the plural, for Syria’s rebel forces are far from united in their goals and strategy. The original youth who staged an unarmed protest have had their cause hijacked by everyone from Marxist intellectuals to the Muslim Brotherhood, Saudi Salafists, foreign mercenaries, and Jihadists linked with al Qaeda — ironically now “in bed” with the USA. Some want democracy, others theocracy. Some want urban guerrilla warfare or a bloody overthrow of Assad and others oppose all violence.

It appears the US prefers a Yemen style revolution, maintaining the established secular regime to control the masses, but replacing the president with a puppet who they can control to suit the agenda of their Saudi-Israeli sponsors.

This undermines the goals of political dialogue is indeed the best outcome; it is naïve and hypocritical to push for discussion while the US and our other allies condone an increasingly militarised and divergent “opposition”.

Third, the “game plan” advocated by our foreign minister appears to have misread the more complex reality on the ground in Syria. Modelled on the Libyan rebels, opposition groups seek to create strongholds by setting up road blocks and consolidating pockets of territory.

Once this is achieved, foreign funding can be funnelled in and anti-government attacks can be launched. The Syrian government then overreacts, moving in to smash the potential pocket.

Although the Syria debate is becoming more polarised, critics of the opposition groups are not, by default, Assad apologists. The government’s predictable propaganda and claims of a “tsunami of lies” from the Western media is useless without offering a tsunami of credible evidence to support its claim to truth.

It is insufficient to say the army has “taken an oath to protect civilians” from a foreign armed invasion, and then respond heavy-handedly, rolling army tanks into residential areas. The Syrian government has created a rod for its own back and cannot continue to blame armed gangs and terrorists every time an atrocity is committed.

For example, it needs to explain what its army was doing during the infanticide from 2pm until 11pm on Friday 25 May when the al-Houla area was “guarded by the government forces at five points”, according to Syrian Foreign Affairs Ministry spokesman Jihad Makdissi, who also announced a “military judicial committee” to investigate the incident?

President Assad’s speech to the newly elected People’s Assembly on Sunday reiterated his siege mentality as he referred to “a war from abroad, to destroy the country”. Hence he has not pitched the violence as a civil war between his own citizens, but as a foreign invasion of Syria’s sovereignty by terrorists and a conspiracy.

Ironically, this has become a self fulfilling prophecy as the more protracted the conflict, the more foreign forces take root. His speech offered nothing new, and the only circuit breaker to the spiralling violence is unconditional political negotiations, as all armed soldiers in Syria are ultimately supplied by foreign forces.

Like the twin suicide car bombs in Damascus which killed 55 people on 10 May near the Syrian military intelligence building, we may never know the truth about these terrorist acts. The close-range shootings and stabbings are atypical to the Syrian army’s methods. It is probable over time that opposition will not have a monopoly on splinter groups and proxies; vindictive pro-Assad militia will likely emerge and commit atrocities in the government’s name.

During his press conference, our Foreign Minister appeared besieged by journalists who appeared to have a more sophisticated understanding of Syria than he did, as he repeatedly retorted: “I need to get advice on that”.

Indeed, he should have been advised not to copy allies who are enemies of the Syrian government. The only message expelling diplomats sends is that we are pre-empting the emergence of conclusive evidence on the many monsters behind the al Houla massacre. By joining the US-led chorus pushing for regime change regardless of the facts, we become followers, not leaders.