Syria – Joseph Wakim

Opinion: Syrian conflict proving to be an international, not civil, war

September 9, 2015

The Courier-Mail

FOR more than three years many voices, including my own, have warned about the Arab Spring turning sour, the morphing of the anti-Assad forces in Syria from pro-democracy to pro-theocracy, the leaking of Western weapons into the wrong hands and the leaking of foreign fighters from Australia.

The Australian Government was twice visited by peace activist Mother Agnes Miriam who advocated Mussalaha – a 10-point plan towards reconciliation within Syria. Voices such as hers and mine were criticised for daring to question the dominant and simplistic narrative of the Arab Spring, but still we cautioned this was not a Syrian civil war, but an international war involving mercenaries and jihadists, where some stakeholders were speaking peace above the table but funnelling weapons and funds under it.

The concerns behind the warnings have materialised. The proof is in the graphic images of human suffering and Europeans opening their borders to a refugee flood.

Here, Australia’s border protection regime has served to dehumanise those seeking refuge on our shores. We have been conditioned to not see past the boats. The faces, names and stories of those inside the boats are obscured. But when a photo from Europe of a dead Syrian child washed up on a Turkish beach makes all the front pages, the dehumanised are re-humanised and we are suddenly outraged.

Whether it is the emblematic pictures of the drowned toddler, Aylan Kurdi, or a father, Abdul Halim Attar, a Palestinian refugee from Yarmouk in Syria, selling pens on a Beirut street, why are we suddenly shocked by these images when we have been warned about this for years? Yet suddenly we have a humanitarian catastrophe in Syria. Suddenly, ISIS is too dangerous and we need to intervene more. Suddenly, the asylum seekers may be genuine and need to be accommodated.

Perhaps Germany’s open arms have shown up our clenched fists when it comes to the treatment of these asylum seekers? Perhaps Pope Francis’s call for each European parish to “take in one family” has revealed the moral dilemma now facing our Australian Catholic “Captain”?

By assisting the US in air strikes in Syria, we may be compounding the problem we are ostensibly now seeking to redress. Did our military intervention in neighbouring Iraq bring about democracy and peace, or sow seeds for more bloodshed? Can we guarantee that more innocent Syrian civilians will not be killed in the crossfire?

Rather than increasing the area of our bombing and stopping the boats, we should stop the causes of the wars that cause the boats. We should be asking whose borders are allowing ISIS fighters and their weapons to “leak” into Syria? We should be asking who in the West and elsewhere is buying the oil and looted antiquities sold by ISIS.

Instead of (or as well as) debating about our refugee intake, we should be pressing the wealthy Middle East Gulf states, which aided and abetted the armed opposition to the Syrian Government, to take in their fair share of Syrians as well.

Joseph Wakim, a founder of the Australian Arabic Council, is a freelance writer

07/07/2014

Stop oiling the supply chain to ISIS

http://bit.ly/V9GEui

Stop oiling the supply chain to Isis
ON LINE opinion

2 July 2014

“The tyrant has fallen and Iraq is free,” trumpeted US President George W Bush aboard aircraft carrier USS Lincoln on 2 May 2003. “Al Qaeda is wounded, not destroyed.”

On the contrary, Al Qaeda cells in Afghanistan reproduced a new ‘base’ in Iraq.

Many of us warned about this before Operation Iraqi Freedom was unleashed but we were dismissed as prophets of doom. While meeting with Prime Minister John Howard on 20 December 2002, we explained the delicate demography of Iraq and cautioned against further fuelling the anger of a nation already crippled by sanctions: another injustice in Iraq will be another magnet for Al Qaeda.

Those who understand what hides beneath the foliage of the ‘Arab Spring’ also warned that the uprising was hijacked by those sowing seeds for a theocracy, not a democracy. Exhibit A: al Nusra Front. Exhibit B: ISIS.

Comparing the new brand of ‘social media’ terrorists such as ISIS with al Qaeda is no longer scaremongering, as this next breed of masked men make Al Qaeda look like their elderly parents. Indeed, Al Qaeda has backed al Nusra Front over the delinquent ISIS in Syria.

Those western voices who falsely declared the democratisation of Iraq a decade ago should now be given the attention they deserve. None. Yet the US have again dispatched hundreds of ‘military advisers’, to counter ISIS in Iraq but not Syria.
They are the same ‘Arabists’ and ‘experts’ who failed to forecast the ‘Arab Spring’ and gave no warning about the recent rise of ISIS.

Those western voices have lost credibility with their amoral ‘enemy of my enemy’ compass: the Salafi jihadists attacking the Assad government are freedom fighters, our friends. But if those same mercenaries step over the border into Iraq to attack al-Malaki’s government, they are now insurgent terrorists, our enemies.

This appears to make no sense as both the Syrian and Iraqi ISIS groups ignore the border in their quest to ‘reclaim’ a Salafi caliphate. The English acronym is wrongly translated as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, but the last letter actually stands for Shaam, or Levant, an axis that includes Lebanon, Israel, Jordan and Palestine. Hence, their Arabic name is pronounced D-A-E-SH. The car bombings that rocked Beirut last week, attributed to Daesh, confirm that their Shaam extends way beyond Syria into all of the Levant. This week, their self-declared caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi declared that the ‘Islamic State’ is ‘breaking the borders’ and will conquer the ‘world of Allah the Highest.’

Why would western voices tolerate the Syrian branch but not the Iraqi branch?

The more credible explanation has nothing to do with Iraq or Syria or justice or democracy.

It has everything to do with the two greatest allies of the US in the region: Saudi Arabia and Israel.

As for Israel, so long as the Arab tribes and sects are depleting each other, this weakens them and relieves ‘the oldest democracy in the region’ from global scrutiny of Palestinian human rights.

As for Saudi Arabia and adjoining sheikdom Qatar, so long as their pipelines of oil to the US continue uninterrupted, the US will turn a blind eye to their pipelines of weapons and finances to these jihadists.

Iraqi prime minister Maliki openly accused Saudi Arabia of “supporting these groups financially and morally [for] … crimes that may qualify as genocide.”

Saudi Arabia and Israel, as arch allies of the US, remain untouchable while the US criticises Syria and Iraq for lack of democracy, lack of inclusion and lack of human rights. The US foreign policy tolerates extremism, Salafism and Zionism when it suits their end game. Hence, it may be in US interests that Al Qaeda is not destroyed in order to manipulate the balance of power.

The aggressive ISIS cells thrive as they cross borders, seize weapons, steal money and cause carnage. But what happens when their ‘use by date’ expires and they approach the Israeli borders as part of their Shaam plan?

After the predictable re-election of the Syrian president, and the regaining of territory by the Syrian army, many ISIS jihadists recently crossed the border to fight a more winnable war in Iraq.

If western voices talk about what ‘we’ are going to do and who should ‘replace’ al Maliki, then ‘we’ have learnt nothing. If western voices label the fighters as Islamists and blame Islam, then we have learnt nothing. The majority of Muslim scholars preach mercy and forgiveness, not crucifixions and genocide. If the central message of Islam is reclaimed, it could be part of the solution rather than part of the problem.

As long as the US protects its Saudi oil supplies, the vital supply chain to ISIS and their ilk will continue to be oiled and the depletions will continue.

07/07/2014

We can’t condemn some arms bearers and not others, like Jewish Australians fighting overseas

http://bit.ly/1pUiu4G

We can’t condemn some arms bearers and not others, like Jewish Australians fighting overseas
The Courier-Mail
July 07, 2014

DURING recent Senate estimates hearings, ASIO’s head David Irvine announced that 150 Australian citizens were being scrutinised for suspected military activities in the Syrian conflict.

He cautioned that young recruits could return with “heightened commitments to jihadi terrorism”.

The self-declared caliph of the ever-expanding Islamic State, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, has called on Muslims to “rush” to arms with “heavy boots”. To try to combat home grown terrorism, Attorney-General George Brandis met with Imams who pledged to use their Friday sermons to help de-radicalise youth. Unfortunately, these Imams are more likely to preach to the converted.

Each time ASIO raises these alarms, echoes rebound with broader questions about Australians in foreign armies.
Sympathisers of the Muslim Australians taking up arms in Syria ask why Jewish Australians taking up arms in Israel experience immunity rather than scrutiny.

Nominally, the two situations are deemed incomparable: the Muslims are taking up arms with illegitimate and criminal terrorist organisations such as the al-Qa’ida-linked al-Nusra and ISIS and al-Qa’ida itself, whereas the Jews are taking up arms with the legitimate army of Israel. But this black and white branding belies the many shades of grey in between.

The atrocities committed by the loose affiliation of brigades and foreign mercenaries in Syria, Lebanon and Iraq are undeniably immoral and inhumane. They have been incriminated for beheadings, kidnappings, crucifixions and cannibalism, as propagated on their own videos.

But the activities of the Israel Defence Forces and its official brigades are well documented by many human rights groups. They have been accused of collective punishment, illegal occupation, imprisonment of minors, torture of prisoners, bulldozing of homes, expansions of settlements and deployment of cluster bombs. Smart uniforms, badges and stripes do not make this right.

Just when does loyalty to a foreign country become disloyalty to Australia? Our homegrown “jihadists” are neither the first nor last to take up arms abroad, as borne out in the recent book Foreign Fighters by Dr David Malet.
Australians fighting with Iraqi jihadists 0:26

This longitudinal study covering 200 years, concludes that most responsive recruits tend to be “marginalised in the broader society”.

Spanish Australians fought on both the Communist and the Catholic side of the Spanish Civil War in the 1930s. Jewish Australians fought in 1948 to establish a homeland. Australians fought on all sides of the Yugoslav wars in the 1990s with Serbs, Croats, Bosniaks, Albanians, Slovenes and Macedonians. But who decides if this military service is moral and justified?

Most Australians now concede our participation in the “Coalition of the Willing” against Iraq in 2003 was unjustified given the false weapons of mass destruction pretext, which has precipitated a spiralling regional and sectarian war.
Since Saddam Hussein was toppled, Western governments have deemed those who have taken up arms against the Iraqi government as insurgents and enemies. But if those same mercenaries crossed the border to fight with the Free Syrian Army, they would be deemed as Western allies.

We can no longer pretend military service by dual citizens will not present conflicts of interest. Even by serving in the ostensibly benign Israel Defence Forces, our citizens would be inadvertently enforcing a one-state solution when Australia officially upholds bipartisan support for a Palestine/Israel two-state solution.
So rather than continuing this subjective policy of selectively condemning some arms bearers while condoning others, our government needs to take the more moral position of banning all such activities.

It is time to review the bilateral agreements regarding dual citizens and their duty for foreign military service. If our young citizens are seriously interested in taking up arms, then suitable candidates could be recruited into our national service. As citizens, this is both their right and responsibility.

Joseph Wakim, a founder of the Australian Arabic Council, is a freelance writer.

Originally published as What of Jewish Australians fighting overseas? Comments

07/03/2014

Big reality gap in phony rhetoric on Ukraine from militaristic US

http://bit.ly/1jSUeJX
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/opinion/opinion-big-reality-gap-in-phony-rhetoric-on-ukraine-from-militaristic-us/story-fnihsr9v-1226846366717

Published in The Courier-Mail
6 March 2014

It is profoundly phony for the US Secretary of State to lecture Russia during press conferences about invading another country on phony pretexts.

What John Kerry was preaching deserves to be juxtaposed against what the US is practising.

“This … act of aggression … is really 19th-century behaviour in the 21st century,” Kerry said.

Well, we do not need to wind the clock back too far to see similar behaviour by the US. Rather than de-escalating and demilitarising the multiplying wars within Syria, the US decided to aid and abet the Free Syrian Army with $250 million worth of “nonlethal” aid. There was no guarantee this aid would not fall into the hands of foreign invaders, mercenaries and jihadists. And, indeed, in December the US was forced to temporarily suspend the shipments after the Islamic Front seized a range of US-supplied equipment, along with weapons, from warehouses.

“You just don’t invade another country on phony pretext in order to assert your interests,” Kerry intoned. Yet in 2003, the US led the invasion of Iraq on the phony, as it rapidly turned out, pretext of weapons of mass destruction, without the sanction of the United Nations Security Council. That was not in the 19th century, but the 21st century. The promises of democracy and liberation have been replaced by the reality of war and instability with no end in sight. US oil companies have bled Iraq of its oil reserves by setting up shop in Basra, while Iraq has bled over half a million citizens from war-relation deaths. So who was asserting their own interests?

“The people of Ukraine are fighting for democracy, they’re fighting for freedom,” Kerry went on.

So were the people of Syria in their unarmed uprising in Dar’aa three years ago. But when many countries began to “assert their interests” by funnelling weapons to both the army and the rebels, the aspirations of the Syrian citizens were hijacked by foreign agendas. Hence words like democracy and freedom ring hollow given the recent US intrusions There are now sarcastic bumper stickers in the Middle East that threaten: “Be nice to Americans. Or we’ll bring democracy to your country.”

Kerry again: “If (the Russians) have legitimate concerns … there are plenty of ways to deal with that without invading the country … We call on Russia to engage with the government of Ukraine this is a time for diplomacy … not to see this escalate into a military confrontation.”

Why is this universal principle selectively applied? The Syrian National Council and their foreign sponsors were never encouraged to “engage” with the Syrian Government, or hand in their weapons during the November 2011 amnesty, or trust the “general conference for national reconciliation”. Rather than pursuing “plenty of ways” towards dialogue about legitimate concerns, the rebels proliferated and became default allies with invaders such as al-Qa’ida. The “time for diplomacy” was repeatedly squandered by all parties which inevitably saw the crisis “escalate into a military confrontation”.

Even in Australia, Prime Minister Tony Abbott toed the same line that “Russia should back off … people of the Ukraine ought to be able to determine their future themselves.” But where was this posturing and principle when Australia recently chaired the UNSC, when the people of Syria sought a civil and political solution, rather than a summit of sponsors?

Before Kerry and his 21st-century allies next meet the press, perhaps they ought to meet the mirror and take an honest look at how dishonest they sound.

08/11/201312/11/2013

Beware Australia’s real ‘illegals’

http://bit.ly/17QYaGP

The Advertiser, 8 November 2013

PICTURE this scenario at an Australian international airport arrivals terminal: “
Excuse me, sir. We are the Federal Police. You are under arrest.”
“Are you serious? What for?”
“Participating in illegal military activities while in Syria.”
“I was on a humanitarian mission!”
“You will need to prove it.”

But this scene will not play itself out in reality while politicians drag their feet in a legal quagmire.
The Abbott Government is renowned for its simple and clear statements, especially pertaining to border protection.

The incarnation of the ‘‘stop the boats’’ war-cry was to launch Operation Sovereign Borders, deploy a three-star general and render the seafaring asylum seekers ‘‘illegal arrivals’’.

So what is the incarnation of its “baddies versus baddies’’ banner overarching Syria?

Why have we not seen the Government launch Operation Foreign Fighters, deploy a three-star general and render the returning mercenaries ‘‘illegal combatants’’?

In his book Foreign Fighters: Transnational Identity in Civil Conflicts, Dr David Malet from Melbourne University claims that the 200 Australians participating in the Syrian war outnumber all other Westerners.

He contends that “the biggest danger is that they return home as recruiters” and are hailed as “heroes in their local communities”.

Surely, this must render them more dangerous than the ‘‘illegal arrivals’’ who are desperately seeking life for their beloved families, not martyrdom for their ‘‘brothers in arms’’ and a ‘‘ticket to paradise’’? Already four Australians are known to have been killed in Syria since the uprising began.

It was rich of former foreign minister Bob Carr to urge his successor to revisit the idea of legally blocking these Australian citizens from returning home from the Syria war zones. He had his chance.

What has been the result of his strategy of intelligence gathering and merely monitoring their recruitment activities after their return? The number of fighters swelled from single to double to triple digits.

While our intelligence agencies need to keep their confidential information and control orders out of the public domain in case the radicalised recruiters go underground, the public deserve more than blanket response of ‘‘trust us – we are doing much more than you think’’.

Regardless of reality, there is a prevailing perception that Australian jihadists come and go with impunity.
Community advocates sounded the alarm when there were two high-profile Australian fatalities in the battle zone in 2013. The alarm was amplified with when this figure subsequently increased.

The government’s “‘wait and see’’ strategy revealed a gaping loophole and made a mockery of our federal laws.

Those opposing the Syrian government did not want their sons to slip down this hole, as virtually all embraced Australia to flee from war. Those supporting the Syrian government also opposed this loophole because of their general concern over foreign mercenaries and terrorists allied with al Nusra and al-Qa’ida.

When David Hicks was participating in paramilitary training in Afghanistan in 2001, the US Military Commission charged him with “providing material support for terrorism” and he was detained in Guantanamo Bay until 2007. But when other Australians participate in military activities in the plethora of pro and anti-government ‘‘brigades’’, they return home to a hero’s welcome.

The current law is articulated by the Department of Foreign Affairs travel advice: “It is illegal under Australian law for Australian citizens, including dual citizens, to provide any kind of support to any armed group in Syria.

“This includes engaging in fighting for either side, funding, training or recruiting someone to fight.”. . . Australians who commit these offences while overseas may be prosecuted in Australia”.

Breaches may incur heavy fines and a maximum 10 years’ imprisonment. So why has there not been a single arrest, prosecution of or conviction reported to the Australian public since the alarm bells were sounded?

Too many of these Australians publicly claim to be offering humanitarian aid to the Syrian refugee epidemic, but their Facebook photos show them posing proudly with guns.
If the problem is loopholes within the current Australian law, then it is incumbent upon the Attorney-General George Brandis to update the national security laws. , just as the anti-terrorism laws were updated with 54 new Bills under the Howard government. The real ‘‘illegals’’ are arriving in planes, not boats.

Joseph Wakim is the founder of the Australian Arabic Council and author of Sorry We Have No Space.

08/10/201312/11/2013

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.

11/09/2013

The Shadow of 9/11 Falls On Syria

www.newmatilda.com/2013/09/11/shadow-911-falls-syria

Published on New Matilda, 11 Sept 2013

“We are in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them … may God grant us wisdom.”

With this prayer, US President George W. Bush vowed revenge [6] against Al Qaeda soon after the World Trade Centre attacks of 11 September 2001. “We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest,” he said. “And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism.”

In his speech today on the eve of the September 11 anniversary, Obama was at pains to distance himself from Al Qaeda.

But his description of the Syrian government as “the forces of tyranny and extremism” could have been his predecessor’s description of Al Qaeda 12 years ago.

Obama declared that “Al Qaeda will only draw strength in a more chaotic Syria if people there see the world doing nothing”. He will ask Congress to postpone a vote authorising violence, saying “it is beyond our means to right every wrong … America is not the world’s policeman.” However, a “pinprick strike” could compound the chaos and embolden Al Qaeda who would welcome “allies” firing from the sky. He fails to urge “those of you watching at home tonight to view those videos” of the beheadings of his fellow Christians in Syria, now an endangered species, and the demolition of sacred churches that mark the history of Christianity.

The US will give time and space for a Russian-led diplomatic solution to the issue of chemical weapons. Despite Obama’s claims that “my administration tried diplomacy …and negotiations”, he fails to cite a single example, siding instead with the rhetoric of the rebels that we will never negotiate with a dictator.

But is Obama, like Bush, really trying to “starve” the terrorists, who presumably feed on chaos? Many would prefer to forget about Bush’s statements given the ironic alliances made by the US. Earlier this year, Obama pledged $250 million of “non-lethal aid” to the Free Syrian Army, a default ally of terrorist armies in “the opposition” affiliated with Al Qaeda. Contrary to Obama’s repeated claims, this is far from a “civil war”.

One opposition group, the Al Qaeda-linked “Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant”, was accused of assassinating a Free Syrian Army commander in July. The “Islamic Front” has vowed to impose Sharia law in Syria [10]. “Jabhat al Nusra” has vowed allegiance to Al Qaeda in Iraq.

Given the war logic of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”, intelligence and arms are shared and flow freely among these allies. This means that US aid may have easily fallen into the hands of Al Qaeda, the sworn enemy of President Bush, still invoked as a reason that intervention in Syria is called for. Why didn’t the US align with the Syrian government years ago in the face of a common enemy: the Wahabi Jihadist ideolology.

Obama’s rhetoric today marks a significant change to Secretary of State John Kerry’s statement at the G20: “This is not the time to be spectators to a slaughter… Neither our country nor our conscience can afford the cost of silence.”

If the US has principles to uphold, but also recognises it can’t militarily police the whole world, then some interesting questions arise: Kerry alleges that his “significant body of open source intelligence” revealed that “for three days before the attack, the Syrian regime’s chemical weapons personnel were on the ground in the area, making preparations.” Why wasn’t the information used to intervene then, or to warn Syrian civilians and prevent over 1400 fatalities? Why was such intelligence not immediately given to the UN weapons inspection team who were on the ground exactly three days before the war crime?

Moreover, if the US leaders are “serious about upholding a ban on chemical weapons use”, where was their “international obligation” when over 1400 Gazans were killed under Operation Cast Lead in January 2009? Obama did not draw an unequivocal red line that “we will not tolerate their use” against “our ally Israel” because it has his “unshakeable support”. According to Amnesty International, Israel “indiscriminately fired white phosphorous over densely populated residential areas.” These unlawful US-imported chemical weapons burn flesh to the bone. Nonetheless US leaders were content to remain spectators to that particular slaughter.

Whether in Gaza or Ghouta, this selective concern makes a cruel mockery of the principles espoused after the World Trade Centre attacks.

Twelve years on, Bush’s prayer, “God grant us wisdom”, has been challenged by Pope Francis. While Obama was still insisting that a “limited” attack on Syria was “the right thing to do”, Pope Francis said that “never has the use of violence brought peace in its wake … war begets war.”

What an irony! While President Obama in St Petersburg was making the moral case for a military solution in Syria, Pope Francis in St Peter’s Square called for a “day of fasting and prayer for peace in Syria” last Saturday. The Pope’s call was heeded and echoed by leaders of many faiths, believing that God alone grants them wisdom.

The last papal day of prayer was declared by Pope John Paul II in the wake of the World Trade Centre attacks 12 years ago. He invited religious leaders to Assisi to pray for “true peace … religion must never become a cause of conflict, hatred and violence.”

30/08/2013

Don’t turn your back on refugees

http://bit.ly/12WOdkU

Don’t turn your back on refugees
Herald Sun
18 July 2013

“AUSTRALIANS are essentially a warm-hearted, kind people who want to have the continuation of an orderly migration system.”

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s recent attempt to focus these two lenses of the Australian binoculars on boat people was missing the third lens: a global perspective.

When asked if we could be “more compassionate to the refugees” at a community cabinet meeting in Rockhampton, Rudd should have known that compassion requires a lens from the outside looking in, not the reverse.

On the other side of the world where I was born, my 4 million Lebanese compatriots have accommodated more than 1 million Syrian refugees, and counting.

Ironically, even the 500,000 Palestinians in South Lebanon refugee camps have opened their tents to the Syrian families. To reject fellow humans at their doorstep was deemed unthinkable and heartless.

This lack of perspective was confirmed by World Vision Australia’s Tim Costello, who recently returned from refugee camps in Lebanon and Jordan, where he met many host families, who explained: “I tell my children we are still lucky we must accept them.”

When comparing the Middle Eastern perspective with Australia, he concluded that “we are thinking in stats and categories, not looking into faces”.

According to Lebanese UN ambassador Nawaf Salam, “Lebanon will not close its borders. It will not turn back any refugees”, even though one in five residents in this war-scarred country is a Syrian refugee.

In contrast, only about one in 200 residents in our land of plenty is a refugee.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees website provides further factual perspective, with 15.4 million refugees seeking a home in 2012, of which only 16,000 were in Australia.

Lebanon and our island nation are geographically and historically incomparable. Many may also argue that Syria and Lebanon share a border, a language and a culture.

This is akin to arguing that New Zealand shares the same affinity with Australia because of our shared language, Tasman Sea and British colonial history. Would Australia have taken a million Kiwis if they were rendered refugees due to war, earthquakes or global warming?
Would rejecting them be unthinkable and heartless? Are our refugee binoculars fitted with a cultural lens?

Our true colours are exposed if we see our trans-Tasman neighbours as “different to other refugees because they are the same as us”. They do not count as stats because we see their faces. Yet, ironically, neither of our “mongrel nations” are monocultural or monolingual.

Hence, it is peculiar that Rudd would be “looking at this right now globally in terms of the effectiveness of the Refugees Convention”, as Article 3 stipulates that the provisions shall apply “without discrimination as to race, religion, or country of origin”.

The 1951 Convention, which was initially a response to World War II on the European continent before the 1967 Universal Protocol, makes no reference to refugee applicants by sea or air.

So long as the applicant is “outside the country of his nationality” and has a “well-founded fear of being persecuted”, the refugee definition applies.

If Rudd intends to capitalise on Australia’s seat at the United Nations Security Council, perhaps he should take a more global rather than Australia-centric perspective.

He may propose to redefine Australian territory to exclude the sea, or redefine refugees to exclude seaborne asylum seekers, secondary points of origin (Article 31) and voyages arranged by people smugglers.

But such proposals may amount to a breach of Article 33, the principle of non-refoulement: “No Contracting State shall expel or return a refugee to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened.”

If Australia were to move to modernise the 1951 Convention, it ought to broaden rather than narrow the definition of refugee beyond “fear of persecution”.

Given the growing effects of global warming, there are refugees as a result of sinking islands in the Pacific.

There are internally displaced refugees in the face of natural disasters such as hurricanes, tsunamis and earthquakes. And of course there are refugees from war-torn countries such as Syria, regardless of their race, religion, regardless of whether they are a majority or minority, and regardless of their economic status.

Only then could the revision of the refugee convention be given a global perspective.

30/08/201312/11/2013

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.

11/03/2013

Prisoner X exposes double standards

http://bit.ly/132TaN7

ON LINE opinion – Australia’s e-journal of social and political debate
Posted Wednesday, 20 February 2013

Prisoner X exposes double standards

Imagine if Prisoner X was an Australian dual citizen who was recruited and incarcerated by the Syrian Mukhabarat rather than the Israeli Mossad. Would our Zionist leaders remain silent as they are now, or demand the loyalty of Syrian dual citizens? Should those driven by their ideology be labeled as fanatical terrorists or noble nationalists, or should this depend on whether they are Arabs or Jews?

Local Arab leaders are no strangers to having their loyalty questioned after two ‘Gulf Wars’, even if they are Australian rather than dual citizens.

I have publicly urged the Australian government to interrogate Australian citizens who visit the war zones of Syria, especially those who claim to be on a humanitarian mission but are then posted and boasted on the social boast as military martyrs sacrificing for their ‘brothers in arms’. Any military, para-military or intelligence service outside Australian defense and security forces should be deemed suspicious.

This does not mean that we should treat such citizens like the US Military Commission treated David Hicks who was charged with ‘providing material support for terrorism’. But it does mean that we cannot turn a blind eye to the human traffic and ‘rites of passage’ between Australia and Israel. Prisoner X now has a name – Ben Zygier, and this illicit recruitment of Australian citizens has a name – exploitation.

The indoctrination of Australian dual citizens into Israeli identity is nothing new. The aptly named Birthright Israel Foundation offers a free ten day educational tour of Israel for 18 to 26 year olds who are first time visitors. Its local representative is the Zionist Federation of Australia which has facilitated over 3300 Australian visits.

Their itinerary is founded on the ‘birthright of all young Jews to visit their ancestral homeland [to]…build a certain future for the Jewish people’. It has no place for education about uncertain future of the Palestinian people. Nor are visitors educated about the contradiction within their definition as both Zionist and ‘democratic’ given the many exclusive rights reserved for its Jewish citizens.

By their own admission, ‘more than 60,000 young Israelis, many of whom are active IDF soldiers, have traveled with the participants’.

The active conscription into the IDF deserves sharper focus in the light of their recent plan to ‘counter the steady decline in the number of conscripts since 2005’. This has been attributed to the drop in immigration by Diaspora Jews or Aliyah. According to Haaretz news, their recruitment drive targets a 15 percent increase from abroad such as Australia, plus a lethal combination of ultra-Orthodox youth and Arab Israelis.

We already had a wake-up call two years ago in Feb 2010 when a Hamas militant Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh was assassinated in Dubai by Mossad agents with a forged Australian passport. Foreign Minister Stephen Smith warned the Israeli ambassador that this was not the ‘act of a friend’, and then expelled a Mossad agent.

This incident taught us that an ‘Australian passport allows Israeli spies to travel throughout the Middle East without attracting suspicion’. But during his recent interview with ABC radio, the president of the Zionist Federation of Australia Philip Chester vehemently denied that ‘when we send Australians to live in Israel …there’s an industry that exists of harvesting …passports in any … illegal way.’

The unanswered questions about Prisoner X go beyond the peculiarities of Ben Zygier. They go to the heart of the taboo question on dual citizenship that the Zionist President evaded: ‘At what point does loyalty to Israel become disloyalty to Australia?’

Just because Australia and Israel are allies in the Middle East does not mean that there will never be a conflict of interest. The ‘anti terrorist’ ends does not justify illegal means. What about differences in the United Nations such as Israel voting against the recent vote to upgrade Palestinian status whereas Australia abstained? What about the fact that Zionist recruitments into IDF are essentially a one state solution to ethnically cleanse the land of their ‘birthright’, whereas Australia supports a two state solution?

Our dual citizenship laws need to be clear about this loyalty question. Australians fighting for the ‘Free Syrian Army’ or answering fatwas for a holy war from muftis in Saudi Arabia should be interrogated, but we have no t heard of one arrest or criminal charge. And would Australian Syrians who are recruited to fight with the national army be just as culpable or is that different? How is it different to an Australian Israeli ‘serving’ in the occupied West Bank?

The Department of Foreign Affairs ‘Dual nationals ‘web page merely warns about the ‘liability for military service’ as a possible obligation, and the risk of imprisonment for defaulters. But this needs much greater elaboration, especially for countries which Australia regards as enemies.
Ironically, there has been gnashing of teeth over this one soul that we have never seen over the thousands of Palestinian men, women and children who are imprisoned, tortured and killed by the same Israeli apparatus.