Tag: ghouta

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.

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.