Third member joins Syrian opposition club
Russia Today
February 19, 2012
Opposition members in Syria have started a new political bloc, aiming to topple the country’s President Bashar al-Assad. This third anti-Assad group further fragments the Syrian opposition.
The new National Bloc for Change, consisting of 80 prominent opposition figures, lawyers, clerics and activists, says it was created to support and coordinate the ongoing “revolution” in Syria. The group adds to the already existing Syrian National Council, based abroad, and Syria’s National Coordination Committee, operating domestically.
“The organization came into being to support the revolution and to consolidate its principles … and to spur participation in building a future that includes all Syrians,” one of the bloc’s founders, Ammar Qarbi, was quoted by Al Arabiya television as saying.
The bloc’s leadership said they support ‘any movement against Assad’s regime’, ‘the revolution’ and the ‘free army’.
Once Bashar al-Assad is ousted, Syria will not be ruled by just one faction as now, another bloc’s founder, Bahiya Mardini, was quoted by the television as saying.
The ruling Baath party has a constitutional monopoly for power in Syria. Following the popular uprising, President al-Assad’s regime proposed a new constitution, allowing a multi-party system in the country.
The referendum for the new constitution is due to be held on February 26 but is expected to be sabotaged by the opposition groups. The National Coordination Committee was quoted by AFP news agency as saying that it is impossible for them to vote “before an end to the violence and killing.”
Saturday saw the talks between the Syrian President and Chinese envoy Zhai Jun, who paid an official visit to the country. China, along with Russia opposes military intervention in Syria and is attempting to mediate the conflict, calling for a political settlement. Zhai Jun expressed hope that the two sides will be able to stop the bloodshed in the country and approach peaceful dialogue.
Karl Sharro, a Middle East blogger based in London, notes the erratic nature of Western policy, particularly in US policy towards Syria.
Speaking to RT, Sharro proposed a hypothetical dilemma: “Assume Assad were to step down tomorrow. Who’s actually the legitimate political opposition to take control? And when the West talks about supporting the Gulf States, this side or that side, who are actually the groups that you would go to and finance or give support to? So within the vacuum who would step in?”
Sharro said the West should step back and try to cool things down before they escalate out of control.
—————————————————————————-
source: http://rt.com/news/syria-opposition-new-bloc-679/
UN stalemate over Syria resolution [video included]
Russia Today
February 16, 2012
The UN General Assembly is due to vote on a second draft resolution stipulating the removal of President Assad to end the spiraling violence in Syria. It is the third attempt at passing a resolution after China and Russia vetoed the first document.
The new resolution, which supports the Arab League’s initiative to facilitate the transition to a democratic government, will be put to a vote later on Thursday.
Russia objects to the paragraph demanding the resignation of President Assad and wants amendments to the draft calling for the disarmament of opposition groups as well as government forces. Arab delegations have dismissed the Russian amendments as unacceptable, claiming they undermine the draft resolution’s message.
“If some members of the international community demand the change of the regime in Syria as a precondition for talks, this is a road to a full-scale civil war. If we want to stop the bloodshed, we should give up preconditions and demand that all parties without exception stop violence and begin negotiations,” said Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on Wednesday.
Russia and China previously vetoed the Security Council resolution on the grounds that it was unbalanced.
General Assembly resolutions cannot be vetoed, but unlike those of the Security Council they are not legally binding. However, if the resolution is passed it will be a significant blow to the legitimacy of President Assad’s government.
The French government has also put forward a resolution concerning the creation of humanitarian corridors which it will present to the Security Council.
Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad announced on Wednesday that a referendum on a new Syrian constitution would be held on February 26 in an effort to open dialogue with the opposition. He said the new constitution will end the political monopoly of the ruling Baath party, one of the initial demands of the opposition forces when the Syrian uprisings began last March.
The decision has been scorned by Washington who said the referendum makes a mockery of the revolution. Opposition forces also dismissed the referendum and called for the immediate resignation of President Assad.
This comes off the back of more reports of intensifying violence in Syria, with government security forces reportedly stepping up their bombardment of the flashpoint city of Homs.
Source – http://rt.com/news/general-assembly-syria-resolution-assad-443/
———————————————–
[hat tip: End the Lie]
Pro-Assad Imam shot dead in Damascus [videos included]
Russia Today
February 16, 2012
A leading religious figure has been assassinated in the conservative Midan area of the Syrian capital Damascus.
Sheik Mohammad Ahmad Ouf Sadeq was an imam at the mosque Anas bin Malek. When he was returning to the capital on Wednesday, an armed group intercepted his vehicle in Qadam Assali, in the Damascus suburbs. Sadeq, 36, had a Ph.D. in Sharia law, and is survived by four children. Some think the religious leader was killed because of his strong pro-Assad position, as he is said to have strongly condemned a January 6 terrorist attack Midan and called for national unity.
According to supporters of the imam, those who killed him want more bloodshed in the country.
“He was killed because he was calling for reform and the end of clashes,” said Sheikh Housaim Shouaib.“Those who did it – they only want chaos and more death.”
[CLICK HERE TO READ THE FULL ARTICLE and watch the included videos]
A “Humanitarian War” on Syria? Military Escalation. Towards a Broader Middle East-Central Asian War?
by Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research
August 9, 2011
“As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia, and Sudan.” General Wesley Clark
PART I I
 |
The Pentagon’s “Salvador Option”: The Deployment of Death Squads in Iraq and Syria
– by Michel Chossudovsky – 2011-08-16
|
An extended Middle East Central Asian war has been on the Pentagon’s drawing board since the mid-1990s.
As part of this extended war scenario, the US-NATO alliance plans to wage a military campaign against Syria under a UN sponsored “humanitarian mandate”.
Escalation is an integral part of the military agenda. Destabilization of sovereign states through “regime change” is closely coordinated with military planning.
There is a military roadmap characterised by a sequence of US-NATO war theaters.
War preparations to attack Syria and Iran have been in “an advanced state of readiness” for several years. The Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003 categorizes Syria as a “rogue state”, as a country which supports terrorism.
A war on Syria is viewed by the Pentagon as part of the broader war directed against Iran. President George W. Bush confirmed in his Memoirs that he had “ordered the Pentagon to plan an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities and [had] considered a covert attack on Syria” (George Bush’s memoirs reveal how he considered attacks on Iran and Syria, The Guardian, November 8, 2010)
This broader military agenda is intimately related to strategic oil reserves and pipeline routes. It is supported by the Anglo-American oil giants.
The July 2006 bombing of Lebanon was part of a carefully planned “military road map”. The extension of “The July War” on Lebanon into Syria had been contemplated by US and Israeli military planners. It was abandoned upon the defeat of Israeli ground forces by Hizbollah.
Israel’s July 2006 war on Lebanon also sought to establish Israeli control over the North Eastern Mediterranean coastline including offshore oil and gas reserves in Lebanese and Palestinian territorial waters.
The plans to invade both Lebanon and Syria have remained on the Pentagon’s drawing board despite Israel’s setback in the 2006 July War: “In November 2008, barely a month before Tel Aviv started its massacre in the Gaza Strip, the Israeli military held drills for a two-front war against Lebanon and Syria called Shiluv Zro’ot III (Crossing Arms III). The military exercise included a massive simulated invasion of both Syria and Lebanon” (See Mahdi Darius Nazemoraya, Israel’s Next War: Today the Gaza Strip, Tomorrow Lebanon?, Global Research, January 17, 2009)
The road to Tehran goes through Damascus. A US-NATO sponsored war on Iran would involve, as a first step, a destabilization campaign (“regime change”) including covert intelligence operations in support of rebel forces directed against the Syrian government.
A “humanitarian war” under the logo of “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) directed against Syria would also contribute to the ongoing destabilization of Lebanon.
Were a military campaign to be waged against Syria, Israel would be directly or indirectly involved in military and intelligence operations.
A war on Syria would lead to military escalation.
There are at present four distinct war theaters: Afghanistan-Pakistan, Iraq, Palestine and Libya.
An attack on Syria would lead to the integration of these separate war theaters, eventually leading towards a broader Middle East-Central Asian war, engulfing an entire region from North Africa and the Mediterranean to Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The ongoing protest movement is intended to serve as a pretext and a justification to intervene militarily against Syria. The existence of an armed insurrection is denied. The Western media in chorus have described recent events in Syria as a “peaceful protest movement” directed against the government of Bashar Al Assad, when the evidence confirms the existence of an armed insurgency integrated by Islamic paramilitary groups.
From the outset of the protest movement in Daraa in mid-March, there has been an exchange of fire between the police and armed forces on the one hand and armed gunmen on the other. Acts of arson directed against government buildings have also been committed. In late July in Hama, public buildings including the Court House and the Agricultural Bank were set on fire. Israeli news sources, while dismissing the existence of an armed conflict, nonetheless, acknowledge that “protesters [were] armed with heavy machine guns.” (DEBKAfile August 1, 2001. Report on Hama, emphasis added)
“All Options on the Table”
In June, US Senator Lindsey Graham (who serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee) hinted to the possibility of a “humanitarian” military intervention directed against Syria with a view to “saving the lives of civilians”. Graham suggested that the “option” applied to Libya under UN Secuirty Council resolution 1973 should be envisaged in the case of Syria:
“If it made sense to protect the Libyan people against Gadhafi, and it did because they were going to get slaughtered if we hadn’t sent NATO in when he was on the outskirts of Benghazi, the question for the world [is], have we gotten to that point in Syria, …
We may not be there yet, but we are getting very close, so if you really care about protecting the Syrian people from slaughter, now is the time to let Assad know that all options are on the table,” (CBS “Face The Nation”, June 12, 2011)
Following the adoption of the UN Security Council Statement pertaining to Syria (August 3, 2011), the White House called, in no uncertain terms, for “regime change” in Syria and the ouster of President Bashar Al Assad:
“We do not want to see him remain in Syria for stability’s sake, and rather, we view him as the cause of instability in Syria,” White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters Wednesday.
“And we think, frankly, that it’s safe to say that Syria would be a better place without President Assad,” (quoted in Syria: US Call Closer to Calling for Regime Change, IPS, August 4, 2011)
Extended economic sanctions often constitute a leadup towards outright military intervention.
A bill sponsored by Senator Lieberman was introduced in the US Senate with a view to authorizing sweeping economic sanctions against Syria. Moreover, in a letter to President Obama in early August, a group of more than sixty U.S. senators called for “implementing additional sanctions… while also making it clear to the Syrian regime that it will pay an increasing cost for its outrageous repression.”
These sanctions would require blocking bank and financial transactions as well as “ending purchases of Syrian oil, and cutting off investments in Syria’s oil and gas sectors.” (See Pressure on Obama to get tougher on Syria coming from all sides – Foreign Policy, August 3, 2011).
Meanwhile, the US State Department has also met with members of the Syrian opposition in exile. Covert support has also been channelled to the armed rebel groups.
Dangerous Crossroads: War on Syria. Beachhead for an Attack on Iran
Following the August 3 Statement by the Chairman of the UN Security Council directed against Syria, Moscow’s envoy to NATO Dmitry Rogozin warned of the dangers of military escalation:
“NATO is planning a military campaign against Syria to help overthrow the regime of President Bashar al-Assad with a long-reaching goal of preparing a beachhead for an attack on Iran,…
“[This statement] means that the planning [of the military campaign] is well underway. It could be a logical conclusion of those military and propaganda operations, which have been carried out by certain Western countries against North Africa,” Rogozin said in an interview with the Izvestia newspaper… The Russian diplomat pointed out at the fact that the alliance is aiming to interfere only with the regimes “whose views do not coincide with those of the West.”
Rogozin agreed with the opinion expressed by some experts that Syria and later Yemen could be NATO’s last steps on the way to launch an attack on Iran.
“The noose around Iran is tightening. Military planning against Iran is underway. And we are certainly concerned about an escalation of a large-scale war in this huge region,” Rogozin said.
Having learned the Libyan lesson, Russia “will continue to oppose a forcible resolution of the situation in Syria,” he said, adding that the consequences of a large-scale conflict in North Africa would be devastating for the whole world. “Beachhead for an Attack on Iran”: NATO is planning a Military Campaign against Syria, Novosti, August 5, 2011)
Dmitry Rogozin, August 2011
Military Blueprint for an Attack on Syria
Dimitry Rogozin’s warning was based on concrete information known and documented in military circles, that NATO is currently planning a military campaign against Syria. In this regard, a scenario of an attack on Syria is currently on the drawing board, involving French, British and Israeli military experts. According to former Commander of the French Air Force (chef d’Etat-Major de l’Armée de l’air) General Jean Rannou, “a NATO strike to disable the Syrian army is technically feasible”:
“Nato member countries would begin by using satellite technology to spot Syrian air defences. A few days later, warplanes, in larger numbers than Libya, would take off from the UK base in Cyprus and spend some 48 hours destroying Syrian surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) and jets. Alliance aircraft would then start an open-ended bombardment of Syrian tanks and ground troops.
The scenario is based on analysts in the French military, from the specialist British publication Jane’s Defence Weekly and from Israel’s Channel 10 TV station.
The Syrian air force is said to pose little threat. It has around 60 Russian-made MiG-29s. But the rest – some 160 MiG-21s, 80 MiG-23s, 60 MiG-23BNs, 50 Su-22s and 20 Su-24MKs – is out of date.
….”I don’t see any purely military problems. Syria has no defence against Western systems … [But] it would be more risky than Libya. It would be a heavy military operation,” Jean Rannou, the former chief of the French air force, told EUobserver. He added that action is highly unlikely because Russia would veto a UN mandate, Nato assets are stretched in Afghanistan and Libya and Nato countries are in financial crisis. (Andrew Rettman, Blueprint For NATO Attack On Syria Revealed, Global Research, August 11, 2011)
The Broader Military Roadmap
While Libya, Syria and Iran are part of the military roadmap, this strategic deployment if it were to be carried out would also threaten China and Russia. Both countries have investment, trade as well as military cooperation agreements with Syria and Iran. Iran has observer status in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).
Escalation is part of the military agenda. Since 2005, the US and its allies, including America’s NATO partners and Israel, have been involved in the extensive deployment and stockpiling of advanced weapons systems. The air defense systems of the US, NATO member countries and Israel are fully integrated.
The Role of Israel and Turkey
Both Ankara and Tel Aviv are involved in supporting an armed insurgency. These endeavors are coordinated between the two governments and their intelligence agencies.
Israel’s Mossad, according to reports, has provided covert support to radical Salafi terrorist groups, which became active in Southern Syria at the outset of the protest movement in Daraa in mid-March. Reports suggest that financing for the Salafi insurgency is coming from Saudi Arabia. (See Syrian army closes in on Damascus suburbs, The Irish Times, May 10, 2011).
The Turkish government of Prime Minister Recep Tayyib Erdogan is supporting Syrian opposition groups in exile while also backing the armed rebels of the Muslim Brotherhood in Northern Syria.
Both the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood (MB) (whose leadership is in exile in the UK) and the banned Hizb ut-Tahrir (the Party of Liberation) are behind the insurrection. Both organizations are supported by Britain’s MI6. The avowed objective of both MB and Hizb-ut Tahir is ultimately to destabilize Syria’s secular State. (See Michel Chossudovsky, SYRIA: Who is Behind The Protest Movement? Fabricating a Pretext for a US-NATO “Humanitarian Intervention”, Global Research, May 3, 2011).
In June, Turkish troops crossed the border into northern Syria, officially to come to the rescue of Syrian refugees. The government of Bashar Al Assad accused Turkey of directly supporting the incursion of rebel forces into northern Syria:
“A rebel force of up to 500 fighters attacked a Syrian Army position on June 4 in northern Syria. They said the target, a garrison of Military Intelligence, was captured in a 36-hour assault in which 72 soldiers were killed in Jisr Al Shoughour, near the border with Turkey.
“We found that the criminals [rebel fighters] were using weapons from Turkey, and this is very worrisome,” an official said.
This marked the first time that the Assad regime has accused Turkey of helping the revolt. … Officials said the rebels drove the Syrian Army from Jisr Al Shoughour and then took over the town. They said government buildings were looted and torched before another Assad force arrived. …
A Syrian officer who conducted the tour said the rebels in Jisr Al Shoughour consisted of Al Qaida-aligned fighters. He said the rebels employed a range of Turkish weapons and ammunition but did not accuse the Ankara government of supplying the equipment.” (Syria’s Assad accuses Turkey of arming rebels, TR Defence, Jun 25 2011)
Denied by the Western media, foreign support to Islamist insurgents, which have “infiltrated the protest movement”, is, nonetheless, confirmed by Western intelligence sources. According to former MI6 officer Alistair Crooke (and high level EU adviser): “two important forces behind events [in Syria] are Sunni radicals and Syrian exile groups in France and the US. He said the radicals follow the teaching of Abu Musab Zarqawi, a late Jordanian Islamist, who aimed to create a Sunni emirate in Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine and Syria called Bilad a-Sham. They are experienced urban guerillas who fought in Iraq and have outside finance. They infilitrate protests to attack Assad forces, as in Jisr al-Shagour in June, where they inflicted heavy casualties.” (Andrew Rettman, Blueprint For NATO Attack On Syria Revealed, Global Research, August 11, 2011, emphasis added).
The former MI6 official also confirms that Israel and the US are supporting and financing the terrorists: “Crooke said the exile groups aim to topple the anti-Israeli [Syrian] regime. They are funded and trained by the US and have links to Israel. They pay Sunni tribal chiefs to put people on the streets, work with NGOs to feed uncorroborated stories of atrocities to Western media and co-operate with radicals in the hope that escalating violence will justify Nato intervention.” (Ibid, emphasis added).
Political factions within Lebanon are also involved. Lebanese intelligence has confirmed the covert shipment of assault rifles and automatic weapons to Salafi fighters. The shipment was carried out by Saudi-backed Lebanese politicians.
The Israel-Turkey Military Cooperation Agreement
Israel and Turkey have a military cooperation agreement which pertains in a very direct way to Syria as well to the strategic Lebanese-Syrian Eastern Mediterranean coastline (including the gas reserves off the coast of Lebanon and pipeline routes).
Already during the Clinton Administration, a triangular military alliance between the US, Israel and Turkey had unfolded. This “triple alliance”, which is dominated by the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, integrates and coordinates military command decisions between the three countries pertaining to the broader Middle East. It is based on the close military ties respectively of Israel and Turkey with the US, coupled with a strong bilateral military relationship between Tel Aviv and Ankara. ….
The triple alliance is also coupled with a 2005 NATO-Israeli military cooperation agreement which includes “many areas of common interest, such as the fight against terrorism and joint military exercises. These military cooperation ties with NATO are viewed by the Israeli military as a means to “enhance Israel’s deterrence capability regarding potential enemies threatening it, mainly Iran and Syria.” (See Michel Chossudovsky,”Triple Alliance”: The US, Turkey, Israel and the War on Lebanon, August 6, 2006)
Meanwhile, the recent reshuffle within Turkey’s top brass has reinforced the pro-Islamist faction within the armed forces. In late July, The Commander in Chief of the Army and head of Turkey’s Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Isik Kosaner, resigned together with the commanders of the Navy and Air Force.
General Kosaner represented a broadly secular stance within the Armed Forces. General Necdet Ozel has been appointed as his replacement as commander of the Army the new army chief.
These developments are of crucial importance. They tend to support US interests. They also point to a potential shift within the military in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood including the armed insurrection in Northern Syria.
“New appointments have strengthened Erdogan and the ruling party in Turkey… [T]he military power is able to carry out more ambitious projects in the region. It is predicted that in case of using the Libyan scenario in Syria it is possible that Turkey will apply for military intervention.” ( New appointments have strengthened Erdogan and the ruling party in Turkey : Public Radio of Armenia, August 06, 2011, emphasis added)
Muslim Brotherhood Rebels at Jisr al Shughour Photos AFP June 16, 2011
[Note: this photo is in many regards misleading. Most of the rebel gunmen are highly trained with modern weapons.]
The Extended NATO Military Alliance
Egypt, the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia (within the extended military alliance) are partners of NATO, whose forces could be deployed in a campaign directed against Syria.
Israel is a de facto member of NATO following an agreement signed in 2005.
The process of military planning within NATO’s extended alliance involves coordination between the Pentagon, NATO, Israel’s Defense Force (IDF), as well as the active military involvement of the frontline Arab states, including Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, Egypt: all in all ten Arab countries plus Israel are members of The Mediterranean Dialogue and the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative.
We are at a dangerous crossroads. The geopolitical implications are far-reaching.
Syria has borders with Jordan, Israel, Lebanon, Turkey and Iraq. It spreads across the valley of the Euphrates, it is at the crossroads of major waterways and pipeline routes.
Syria is an ally of Iran. Russia has a naval base in North Western Syria (see map).
Establishment of a base in Tartus and rapid advancement of military technology cooperation with Damascus makes Syria Russia’s instrumental bridgehead and bulwark in the Middle East.
Damascus is an important ally of Iran and irreconcilable enemy of Israel. It goes without saying that appearance of the Russian military base in the region will certainly introduce corrections into the existing correlation of forces.
Russia is taking the Syrian regime under its protection. It will almost certainly sour Moscow’s relations with Israel. It may even encourage the Iranian regime nearby and make it even less tractable in the nuclear program talks.( Ivan Safronov, Russia to defend its principal Middle East ally: Moscow takes Syria under its protection, Global Research July 28, 2006)
World War III Scenario
For the last five years, the Middle East-Central Asian region has been on an active war footing.
Syria has significant air defense capabilities as well as ground forces.
Syria has been building up its air defense system with the delivery of Russian Pantsir S1 air-defense missiles. In 2010, Russia delivered a Yakhont missile system to Syria. The Yakhont operating out of Russia’s Tartus naval base “are designed for engagement of enemy’s ships at the range of up to 300 km”. (Bastion missile systems to protect Russian naval base in Syria, Ria Novosti, September 21, 2010).
The structure of military alliances respectively on the US-NATO and Syria-Iran-SCO sides, not to mention the military involvement of Israel, the complex relationship between Syria and Lebanon, the pressures exerted by Turkey on Syria’s northern border, point indelibly to a dangerous process of escalation.
Any form of US-NATO sponsored military intervention directed against Syria would destabilize the entire region, potentially leading to escalation over a vast geographical area, extending from the Eastern Mediterranean to the Afghanistan-Pakistan border with Tajikistan and China.
In the short run, with the war in Libya, the US-NATO military alliance is overextended in terms of its capabilities. While we do not forsee the implementation of a US-NATO military operation in the short-term, the process of political destabilization through the covert support of a rebel insurgency will in all likelihood continue.
This article was updated on August 11, 2011.
China backs Syria referendum, calls for end of violence [video included]
Russia Today
February 18, 2012
China is ‘extremely concerned’ over the crisis in Syria. The Chinese envoy has called for an end to the bloodshed, and the Assad-backed political referendum in the country which has been torn by protests and surging violence.
During his two-day visit to Syria Chinese Vice-Foreign Minister Zhai Jun has called on both sides in the Syrian conflict to stop the violence and approach political reforms.
“The position of China is to call on the government, the opposition and the rebels to halt acts of violence immediately,” he said following talks with the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Zhai Jun added that peace would serve the best interests of the Syrian civilian population.
“We hope that the referendum on a new constitution, as well as the forthcoming parliamentary elections pass off calmly,” the official was quoted by the Syrian state television as saying.
Zhai told Assad that China was willing to work with the Syrian government and opposition, Arab League, and Arab countries to reach a solution.
“China supports all the Arab League’s mediation efforts to find a political solution to the Syrian crisis, and calls upon the relevant parties to increase communication and negotiations to find a peaceful and appropriate solution to the Syria within the framework of the Arab League, and on the basis of the Arab League’s relevant political solution proposals,” Zhai was quoted as saying.
Later in the day, the stance was reiterated on the Chinese Foreign Ministry’s website.
Following talks on Friday with his Syrian counterpart, Faisal Meqdad, Zhai Jun said that China urges the international community to respect the country’s sovereignty.
“We exchanged views on ways to strengthen our cooperation in the face of this difficult period in Syria,” the envoy said. “The sovereignty, unity, independence and territorial integrity of Syria must be respected by all sides and by the international community.”
After a meeting with Zhai Jun, President Assad reiterated that the ongoing turmoil in the country is actually a plot to split Syria up.
“What Syria is facing is fundamentally an effort to divide it and affect its geopolitical place and historic role in the region,” Assad said, as cited by Syrian state television.
The Syrian opposition has rejected President Assad’s call for a referendum on a new draft constitution at the end of the month. The document is said to include a charter aimed at ending single-party rule in the country. “It is impossible for us to take part in this referendum before an end to the violence and killings,” AFP news agency quoted the opposition National Coordination Committee for Democratic Change.
Crisis-locked Syria now finds itself caught between two different diplomatic efforts. One, encouraged by the US and a number of Western powers, comes as condemnation of the country’s regime and call for speedy transition of power. Another, sponsored by Russia and China, calls for political dialogue of the conflicting sides.
The UN General Assembly resolution, adopted on Thursday, urges Syria’s President Assad to step down. The document was voted against by Russia and China and has no executive power.
The two countries maintain the conflict in the country should be resolved politically and oppose any military intervention into what they call Syrian internal affairs.
China’s efforts to mediate in the Syrian conflict are driven with the country’s willingness to show it as a global player, political scientist Joseph Cheng told RT.
“China certainly wants to exert and develop its influence in the Middle East region which is of strategic importance to China, and China increasingly believes that it is a global power,” he said. “It has global interest and this interest should be respected.”
Despite the condemnation of the violence in Syria coming from the international community, the protest movement and the violence show no signs of ending.
Following Friday prayers thousands reportedly took to the streets of Damascus to demand Bashar al-Assad resigns. Opposition forces say that at least three protesters have been killed in clashes with government forces, Reuters said. The information cannot be verified independently.
Protests are also said to have hit a number of other Syrian cities on Friday.
According to opposition activists, the Syrian army is continuing heavy shelling of the city of Homs.
As the situation remains unresolved in Syria, experts fear the fall of the Syrian regime will make another important player in the region, Iran, feel isolated and forced to act.
After the removal of Assad, Iran might turn unpredictable and even dangerous, Islamic affairs analyst David Hartwell told RT. “Perhaps, accelerating the nuclear program, accelerating its interference, or perceived interference in other countries in the region – perhaps Bahrain, Lebanon, or the Palestinian territories,” Hartwell said.
—————-
[hat tip: End the Lie]
Escobar: Al-Qaeda agents worm into Syrian rebel army [video]
Russia Today
February 18, 2012
The EU states are calling for creating humanitarian corridors in Syria, which some fear could open the door to foreign intervention. But Asia Times correspondent Pepe Escobar says it’s already underway.
RT on Twitter http://twitter.com/RT_com
RT on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/RTnews
US-Funded Tunisian President Prepares to Withdraw Recognition of Syrian Government
US begins reaping rewards of its 2011 campaign of Arab destabilization.
by Tony Cartalluci
Land Destroyer Report
February 5, 2012
Reuters reported, “Tunisia “to withdraw recognition” of Syria government,” and specifically that newly appointed Tunisian president Moncef Marzouki made the announcement on his Facebook page. Reuters also notes “Tunisia’s decision to sever ties with Damascus carries moral weight because the north African country’s revolution last year started off the “Arab Spring” upheavals which later spread throughout the Middle East, including to Syria.” What Reuters of course fails to mention is that the “Arab Spring” was engineered years in advance, planned, funded, and directed by the US State Department, with Moncef Marzouki a direct recipient on record of such support which ultimately paved his way from obscurity to now president of the North African nation.
The US Put Moncef Marzouki of Tunisia into Power
Last December, the BBC hailed Tunisia’s assembly and their election of a new president in their article, “Tunisian activist, Moncef Marzouki, named president.” What the BBC predictably failed to mention was that Marzouki’s organization, the Tunisian League for Human Rights, was a US National Endowment for Democracy and George Soros Open Society-funded International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) member organization.
Photo: Tunisia’s new “president,” Moncef Marzouki, a veteran Western collaborator whose last two decades of political activity have been supported and subsidized by the US government and US corporate-financier funded foundations.
It was earlier reported in “Soros Celebrates the Fall of Tunisia,” that Marzouki was named “interim-president” of Tunisia and that the myriad of NGOs and opposition organizations that worked with him to overthrow the government of Tunisia were fully subsidized and backed by the US government and US corporate-funded foundations.
Marzouki, who spent two decades in exile in Paris, France, was also founder and head of the Arab Commission for Human Rights, a collaborating institution with the US NED World Movement for Democracy (WMD) including for a “Conference on Human Rights Activists in Exile” and a participant in the WMD “third assembly” alongside Marzouki’s Tunisian League for Human Rights, sponsored by NED, Soros’ Open Society, and USAID.
Marzouki, along with his Libyan counterpart Abdurrahim el-Keib, formally of the Petroleum Institute, sponsored by British Petroleum (BP), Shell, France’s Total, the Japan Oil Development Company, and the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company, makes for the second Western proxy installed into power either by covert sedition or overt military aggression, during the US-engineered “Arab Spring.”
Now, it is quite clear how Marzouki is reciprocating the foreign-backed plot that thrust him into power – complete servitude toward Wall Street and London’s foreign policy in backing this very same foreign-funded gambit now playing out in Syria.
Like Tunisia, Syria is a Premeditated Foreign-Funded Destabilization
Syria has been slated for regime change since as early as 1991. In 2002, then US Under Secretary of State John Bolton added Syria to the growing “Axis of Evil.” It would be later revealed that Bolton’s threats against Syria manifested themselves as covert funding and support for opposition groups inside of Syria spanning both the Bush and Obama administrations.
In an April 2011 CNN article, acting State Department spokesman Mark Toner stated, “We’re not working to undermine that [Syrian] government. What we are trying to do in Syria, through our civil society support, is to build the kind of democratic institutions, frankly, that we’re trying to do in countries around the globe. What’s different, I think, in this situation is that the Syrian government perceives this kind of assistance as a threat to its control over the Syrian people.”
Toner’s remarks came after the Washington Post released cables indicating the US has been funding Syrian opposition groups since at least 2005 and continued until today.
In an April 2011 AFP report, Michael Posner, the assistant US Secretary of State for Human Rights and Labor, stated that the “US government has budgeted $50 million in the last two years to develop new technologies to help activists protect themselves from arrest and prosecution by authoritarian governments.”
The report went on to explain that the US “organized training sessions for 5,000 activists in different parts of the world. A session held in the Middle East about six weeks ago gathered activists from Tunisia, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon who returned to their countries with the aim of training their colleagues there,” (emphasis added). Posner would add, “They went back and there’s a ripple effect.” That ripple effect of course is the “Arab Spring,” and in Syria’s case, the impetus for the current unrest threatening to unhinge the nation and invite in foreign intervention.”
US Finally Reaping Rewards from Installed Proxy-Regimes
Quite clearly the orchestrated reordering of the Arab World was done in a specific order, so that easier nations to topple would be able to eventually contribute to fueling the downfall of more difficult targets as US proxy regimes were installed. Tunisia’s diplomatic attack against Syria is just one example. The despoiling and destruction of Libya by NATO-backed LIFG terrorists has provided a base of operation for the international mercenaries who are now verifiably sending fighters into Syria, led by notorious LIFG commander Abdul Belhaj.
It may be the threat of foreign-funded destabilization hanging over the heads of despotic regimes like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates that have them jumping through diplomatic and tactical hoops in support for Wall Street and London’s geopolitical ambitions. Of course, ultimately, the destabilization of Syria is directed at weakening and ultimately attacking Iran as well.
This illustrates yet another justification for Russia and China, and other nations to begin fully resisting the mafioso protection racket that is the UN Security Council and yet another attempt to foist a war of aggression and conquest onto the population of the world. Ultimately, however, it is up to the people, worldwide to identify the corporate-financier power structures that provide the foundation from which this sweeping genocidal, domineering campaign is being carried out – and then boycott and replace them utterly out of existence. Because when the parasitic global elite are done picking the bones of nations afar, they will turn in on their own people – as has always happened throughout human history.
PN 