5 New Messages
Digest #4437
Messages
Fri Jul 20, 2012 6:30 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://english.
Voice of Russia
July 20, 2012
New confirmation of US double-standard policy
Konstantin Garibov
====
"The US has once again confirmed its position regarding the priorities of its foreign policy. It supports its ally on any issues and ignores the negative events their opponents live through. This time Washington repeatedly made it clear that it would not revise its foreign policy. Actually it never did so in its history. The goals and priorities of US foreign policy on the Middle East are unchangeable and they won’t change. It sounds trivial but it is so. The US reaction to the events in Burgas and Damascus has confirmed it."
====
On July 20, the mandate of the UN Supervision Mission in Syria expires. After the intrigue regarding the mission’s prolongation lingered in the UN Security Council, now it looks like 300 unarmed servicemen will stay in that country.
It is quite likely that on Friday the UN Security Council will approve the resolution on the technical prolongation of the mission for 30 more days. By now the mission has worked for 90 days in Syria. Russia’s permanent ambassador in the UN Vitaly Churkin expressed confidence that the mission would be prolonged. The diplomat also welcomed Pakistan’s intention to submit its draft on the technical prolongation of the mission to the UN Security Council.
Russia plans to increase its monitoring mission in Syria by 30 servicemen. President Putin signed a ruling to that effect about Russia’s willingness to dispatch up to 30 liaison and staff officers, as well as military observers to the UN monitor mission at the expense of the United Nations.
The intrigue regarding the mission’s prolongation lingered after Russia and China vetoed the draft resolution on Syria proposed by the UK. That draft contained a proposal to prolong the UN mission but also an initiative to introduce tough sanctions against the regime in Damascus and an option to use military force if Damascus did not withdraw troops from Syrian cities. Russia and China’s veto of that unilateral resolution suspended the question about the mission’s technical prolongation. However, right after the vote the ambassadors of Russia and China in the UN Vitaly Churkin and Li Baodong said that they would vote for the prolongation.
The US reaction to it was inadequate. Washington said that it would support the prolongation of the mission’s mandate only if a tough anti-Syrian resolution is approved, in other words a resolution aimed at overthrowing Bashar Assad’s regime. In fact the UN supervision mission served as a bargaining chip for US plans on Syria. Later the US position slightly changed. Washington made a statement that it was ready to consider the mission’s prolongation.
The US reaction to the terrorist attacks in Damascus, in which three generals were killed including Syria’s Defense Minister, was quite remarkable. The US statement did not contain any condemnation of the attacks. Moreover Barack Obama accused Bashar Assad of what had happened, saying that the assassinations of the ministers were the consequences of his policy.
At the same time Barack Obama condemned the terrorist attack in Bulgaria where a suicide bomber carried out an attack that killed eight people in a bus transporting Israeli tourists, because that attack concerned Israel’s international image. Obama’s statement expressed firm determination to support its Mideast ally. Again the US activates its double-standard policy mechanism, fighting terrorism when it is targeted against its allies and ignoring attacks when the targets are US opponents. We hear from Sergey Demidenko, an analyst at the Institute of Strategic Studies.
"The US has once again confirmed its position regarding the priorities of its foreign policy. It supports its ally on any issues and ignores the negative events their opponents live through. This time Washington repeatedly made it clear that it would not revise its foreign policy. Actually it never did so in its history. The goals and priorities of US foreign policy on the Middle East are unchangeable and they won’t change. It sounds trivial but it is so. The US reaction to the events in Burgas and Damascus has confirmed it."
Meanwhile reports about ongoing military actions in Syria are controversial. The opposition claims that it has taken control over all the checkpoints on the border with Iraq and two check points on the border with Turkey. The authorities deny this information. It has been rumored that Damascus is preparing repressions in response to the murders of Bashar Assad’s associates. The authorities have warned the population that in some regions the insurgents dressed in the uniforms of government troops are going to perpetrate massacres and later shift the blame onto the military.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Voice of Russia
July 20, 2012
New confirmation of US double-standard policy
Konstantin Garibov
====
"The US has once again confirmed its position regarding the priorities of its foreign policy. It supports its ally on any issues and ignores the negative events their opponents live through. This time Washington repeatedly made it clear that it would not revise its foreign policy. Actually it never did so in its history. The goals and priorities of US foreign policy on the Middle East are unchangeable and they won’t change. It sounds trivial but it is so. The US reaction to the events in Burgas and Damascus has confirmed it."
====
On July 20, the mandate of the UN Supervision Mission in Syria expires. After the intrigue regarding the mission’s prolongation lingered in the UN Security Council, now it looks like 300 unarmed servicemen will stay in that country.
It is quite likely that on Friday the UN Security Council will approve the resolution on the technical prolongation of the mission for 30 more days. By now the mission has worked for 90 days in Syria. Russia’s permanent ambassador in the UN Vitaly Churkin expressed confidence that the mission would be prolonged. The diplomat also welcomed Pakistan’s intention to submit its draft on the technical prolongation of the mission to the UN Security Council.
Russia plans to increase its monitoring mission in Syria by 30 servicemen. President Putin signed a ruling to that effect about Russia’s willingness to dispatch up to 30 liaison and staff officers, as well as military observers to the UN monitor mission at the expense of the United Nations.
The intrigue regarding the mission’s prolongation lingered after Russia and China vetoed the draft resolution on Syria proposed by the UK. That draft contained a proposal to prolong the UN mission but also an initiative to introduce tough sanctions against the regime in Damascus and an option to use military force if Damascus did not withdraw troops from Syrian cities. Russia and China’s veto of that unilateral resolution suspended the question about the mission’s technical prolongation. However, right after the vote the ambassadors of Russia and China in the UN Vitaly Churkin and Li Baodong said that they would vote for the prolongation.
The US reaction to it was inadequate. Washington said that it would support the prolongation of the mission’s mandate only if a tough anti-Syrian resolution is approved, in other words a resolution aimed at overthrowing Bashar Assad’s regime. In fact the UN supervision mission served as a bargaining chip for US plans on Syria. Later the US position slightly changed. Washington made a statement that it was ready to consider the mission’s prolongation.
The US reaction to the terrorist attacks in Damascus, in which three generals were killed including Syria’s Defense Minister, was quite remarkable. The US statement did not contain any condemnation of the attacks. Moreover Barack Obama accused Bashar Assad of what had happened, saying that the assassinations of the ministers were the consequences of his policy.
At the same time Barack Obama condemned the terrorist attack in Bulgaria where a suicide bomber carried out an attack that killed eight people in a bus transporting Israeli tourists, because that attack concerned Israel’s international image. Obama’s statement expressed firm determination to support its Mideast ally. Again the US activates its double-standard policy mechanism, fighting terrorism when it is targeted against its allies and ignoring attacks when the targets are US opponents. We hear from Sergey Demidenko, an analyst at the Institute of Strategic Studies.
"The US has once again confirmed its position regarding the priorities of its foreign policy. It supports its ally on any issues and ignores the negative events their opponents live through. This time Washington repeatedly made it clear that it would not revise its foreign policy. Actually it never did so in its history. The goals and priorities of US foreign policy on the Middle East are unchangeable and they won’t change. It sounds trivial but it is so. The US reaction to the events in Burgas and Damascus has confirmed it."
Meanwhile reports about ongoing military actions in Syria are controversial. The opposition claims that it has taken control over all the checkpoints on the border with Iraq and two check points on the border with Turkey. The authorities deny this information. It has been rumored that Damascus is preparing repressions in response to the murders of Bashar Assad’s associates. The authorities have warned the population that in some regions the insurgents dressed in the uniforms of government troops are going to perpetrate massacres and later shift the blame onto the military.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Fri Jul 20, 2012 6:30 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.rt.
RT
July 20, 2012
‘Don’t be duped by Western humanitarian rhetoric on Syria’ – Russia's UN ambassador
====
[H]umanitarian intervention unfortunately only sounds humane, but the fact of the matter is that any military intervention for whatever reason is inevitably going to cause more bloodshed. And we know the greatest humanitarians in the world – the US and UK – intervened in Iraq, for instance, citing all sorts of noble pretexts, in that particular case – non-existent weapons of mass destruction. What it caused – 150 thousand civilian deaths alone, to say nothing about millions of refugees, displaced persons and the whole dislocation in the country. So, don’t be duped by humanitarian rhetoric. There is much more geopolitics in their policy in Syria than humanism.
[C]urbing Iranian influence in the Middle East...is also a major motivation of the other Middle Eastern fighters for democracy – Saudi Arabia and Qatar – who are concerned about what they see as Iranian interests; in Bahrain as well.
[A]bout vetoes – if I am not mistaken, the US has cast 60 vetoes on the Palestinian issue alone. So, why don’t you question my American colleagues about the impact of the image of the US in the Middle East of those continuous vetoes?
====
Russia and China have for the third time vetoed a UN Security Council resolution on Syria which would entail tragic consequences for Damascus. Russia’s ambassador to the UN told RT why a diplomatic solution to the crisis remains the only option.
In an exclusive interview with RT, Vitaly Churkin gave his explanation of what is going on in Syria and why he thinks the conflict has spread beyond that country's borders.
RT: Russia's decision to veto this latest resolution has caused consternation and widespread criticism of Moscow's stance – is Russia supporting the Assad regime?
Vitaly Churkin: Of course not. It is all about what needs to be done in order to settle the crisis. Unfortunately, the strategy of our Western colleagues seems to be to try to whip up tensions in and around Syria at every opportunity. And this time they took the occasion of the need to extend the mandate of the monitoring mission in Syria and attached a number of unacceptable clauses to their draft resolution. So, we needed to veto together with China that unacceptable draft to allow Kofi Annan more space to work on the document which was adopted by foreign ministers of a number of countries of the so-called “action group”, which calls for setting up transitional national body and that requires of course the dialogue between various parties. So, in this context, to introduce a resolution which would only entail pressure and almost inevitable sanctions on the Syrian government did not look like a good idea to us at all and we blocked the decision,
which in our view was counter-productive.
RT: So, Moscow is not supporting the Assad regime, but America, Britain and France say Russia's failed the Syrian people – how do you react to that?
VC: You know, they are quite good and bad and loud about their propaganda. I think that’s what they have been doing by criticizing Russia and China stridently. Today it was the British and French [UN] perm reps who went out of their way, unfortunately, piling all sorts of falsehoods on the foreign policies of Russia and China. They should focus more on the need to help Kofi Annan.
Unfortunately, they have not done anything at all in order to set and train a productive and positive process in Syria. Instead, they have been working with the so-called “Friends of Syria”. In fact, this is a group of countries who are enemies of the Syrian government, I would not call them the enemies of the Syrian people, but certainly those who want to topple the Syrian government, disregarding the consequences which are extremely tragic; such a policy inevitably entails [tragedy] because the government or President Assad is not simply one individual or a group of individuals. They represent a certain segment of the Syrian population, of a certain power structure, which has existed there for decades. To break it would cause and is causing considerable trouble and bloodshed. To reform it through dialogue, this would be a much more reasonable line of action and this is what Russia has been advocating.
RT: But dialogue has not achieved anything so far. Isn't there now an overwhelming global sense that something has to be done to stop the killing of innocent people – what about intervention on humanitarian grounds, is that not acceptable to Moscow? I know that Moscow is very concerned about Chapter 7 leading to perhaps military intervention. But what about some form of intervention to stop the killing?
VC: In a way, the monitoring group which we are trying to maintain is a way of political intervention – of practical intervention – in trying to deter violence. Unfortunately, it has not happened, it has not been successful.
You said the dialogue has not achieved anything. The problem is the dialogue has not started yet. The opposition groups refuse to enter into dialogue with the Syrian government, which says it is prepared for dialogue. They should try that offer of the Syrian government to enter into dialogue. And this is a major missing link, a major impediment in the way of Kofi Annan’s activity.
You know, humanitarian intervention unfortunately only sounds humane, but the fact of the matter is that any military intervention for whatever reason is inevitably going to cause more bloodshed. And we know the greatest humanitarians in the world – the US and UK – intervened in Iraq, for instance, citing all sorts of noble pretexts, in that particular case – non-existent weapons of mass destruction. What it caused – 150 thousand civilian deaths alone, to say nothing about millions of refugees, displaced persons and the whole dislocation in the country. So, don’t be duped by humanitarian rhetoric. There is much more geopolitics in their policy in Syria than humanism. Unfortunately, the practical consequences of their policies there are that the conflict and bloodshed is not abating.
RT: You've mentioned geopolitics and I understand you mentioned the fact that what's happening in Syria is going to spread to Iran eventually. Can you explain that? That Iran is the eventual goal?
VC: I did refer to Iran, but in a slightly different context. I would not rule out that then they would move on to Iran, but I was not referring to that. In my remarks at the [Security] Council of the United Nations earlier today I was referring to their clear interest. And this is a major motivation of their policy and their effort to topple President Assad - in curbing Iranian influence in the Middle East and that entire region. And it is also a major motivation of the other Middle Eastern fighters for democracy – Saudi Arabia and Qatar – who are concerned about what they see as Iranian interests; in Bahrain as well.
They claim the Shia protests there is sort of Iranian-sponsored even though some observers – including your colleagues and journalists who have experience on the ground – believe that they happen to be genuine protests against a system which is not entirely democratic, to put it mildly. So, a clear geopolitical dimension is there in the policies of a number of countries, who are extremely aggressive vis-a-vis Syria. And it has nothing to do with the interests of the Syrian people.
RT: What is the worry for Moscow, all these geopolitical implications you’ve explained so clearly, why is Moscow so worried about this? In what way could Moscow be affected?
VC: We are not worried about geopolitical implications even though we believe that greater confrontation with Iran is hurting, is unnecessary and we are directly involved in efforts to resolve peacefully the problem of the Iranian nuclear program. And this growing tension between Iran, the West and the Saudis is not helpful.
Our concern is that the Syrian people have to suffer the consequences of this geopolitical struggle and our concern is that the focus of everybody’s policy must be the benefit of the Syrian people. And the only way they can put an end to this tragic conflict is to get to the negotiating table.
And there is good ground, there is a document which was a consensus document adopted by the “action group” - foreign ministers in Geneva - two and a half weeks ago which says that a transitional national body needs to be set up and it can not be set up by sanctions, it can not be set up by more pressure on just one side – the Syrian government, which is claiming that it is ready for such dialogue; it designated its representative for such a dialogue.
But so far the interest from the opposition is not there and we see extreme opposition groups; armed opposition groups resorting to more and more violence and even terrorist attacks like the one we saw yesterday in Damascus. This is not to say that the Syrian government has not resorted to excessive violence at times; they made very serious mistakes and blunders over the months but the time to end it is now. Unless we want to continue it for years, [we need to] enter into a dialogue.
RT: Russia is really stuck by its principles of non-intervention. Is there not a danger of being isolated, bearing in mind the continual vetoing of the sanctions of the UN Security Council and the supplying of military hardware to Syria. Of course Moscow says it is not being used against civilians, but what is it to do for Russia’s reputation and, indeed, its relations after this crisis is over?
VC: We’ll see. I think doing the right thing and not simply following somebody’s catastrophic policy is something which makes me proud and something which eventually will be borne out as the right course of action and the right policy under these very difficult circumstances. And about vetoes – if I am not mistaken, the US has cast 60 vetoes on the Palestinian issue alone. So, why don’t you question my American colleagues about the impact of the image of the US in the Middle East of those continuous vetoes?
Sometimes even vetoing their own presidential and secretary of state’s public statements. So, the veto is a part of the UN Charter and there is nothing wrong about casting it when you feel the need to do so.
RT: Can we talk about what happens next now? No agreement in the UN Security Council, but Russia has said that it would like to see the extension of the UN observer mission to Syria. But the monitors haven't made any visible impact on the mission so far. So what's the point in keeping the mission alive when so far it has failed?
VC: What would be the point of their departure? We think that we have at least more chances to get objective information if it is there If the situation were to improve, they would be on the ground already, so, they would be able to participate more actively in political process and also in dealing with the humanitarian situation. Pulling them out is going to entail negative consequences. Unfortunately, now and again we seem to be entering another diplomatic battle. Now we are going to have a discussion about really making it technically rollover without loading it with political conditions and implications.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
RT
July 20, 2012
‘Don’t be duped by Western humanitarian rhetoric on Syria’ – Russia's UN ambassador
====
[H]umanitarian intervention unfortunately only sounds humane, but the fact of the matter is that any military intervention for whatever reason is inevitably going to cause more bloodshed. And we know the greatest humanitarians in the world – the US and UK – intervened in Iraq, for instance, citing all sorts of noble pretexts, in that particular case – non-existent weapons of mass destruction. What it caused – 150 thousand civilian deaths alone, to say nothing about millions of refugees, displaced persons and the whole dislocation in the country. So, don’t be duped by humanitarian rhetoric. There is much more geopolitics in their policy in Syria than humanism.
[C]urbing Iranian influence in the Middle East...is also a major motivation of the other Middle Eastern fighters for democracy – Saudi Arabia and Qatar – who are concerned about what they see as Iranian interests; in Bahrain as well.
[A]bout vetoes – if I am not mistaken, the US has cast 60 vetoes on the Palestinian issue alone. So, why don’t you question my American colleagues about the impact of the image of the US in the Middle East of those continuous vetoes?
====
Russia and China have for the third time vetoed a UN Security Council resolution on Syria which would entail tragic consequences for Damascus. Russia’s ambassador to the UN told RT why a diplomatic solution to the crisis remains the only option.
In an exclusive interview with RT, Vitaly Churkin gave his explanation of what is going on in Syria and why he thinks the conflict has spread beyond that country's borders.
RT: Russia's decision to veto this latest resolution has caused consternation and widespread criticism of Moscow's stance – is Russia supporting the Assad regime?
Vitaly Churkin: Of course not. It is all about what needs to be done in order to settle the crisis. Unfortunately, the strategy of our Western colleagues seems to be to try to whip up tensions in and around Syria at every opportunity. And this time they took the occasion of the need to extend the mandate of the monitoring mission in Syria and attached a number of unacceptable clauses to their draft resolution. So, we needed to veto together with China that unacceptable draft to allow Kofi Annan more space to work on the document which was adopted by foreign ministers of a number of countries of the so-called “action group”, which calls for setting up transitional national body and that requires of course the dialogue between various parties. So, in this context, to introduce a resolution which would only entail pressure and almost inevitable sanctions on the Syrian government did not look like a good idea to us at all and we blocked the decision,
which in our view was counter-productive.
RT: So, Moscow is not supporting the Assad regime, but America, Britain and France say Russia's failed the Syrian people – how do you react to that?
VC: You know, they are quite good and bad and loud about their propaganda. I think that’s what they have been doing by criticizing Russia and China stridently. Today it was the British and French [UN] perm reps who went out of their way, unfortunately, piling all sorts of falsehoods on the foreign policies of Russia and China. They should focus more on the need to help Kofi Annan.
Unfortunately, they have not done anything at all in order to set and train a productive and positive process in Syria. Instead, they have been working with the so-called “Friends of Syria”. In fact, this is a group of countries who are enemies of the Syrian government, I would not call them the enemies of the Syrian people, but certainly those who want to topple the Syrian government, disregarding the consequences which are extremely tragic; such a policy inevitably entails [tragedy] because the government or President Assad is not simply one individual or a group of individuals. They represent a certain segment of the Syrian population, of a certain power structure, which has existed there for decades. To break it would cause and is causing considerable trouble and bloodshed. To reform it through dialogue, this would be a much more reasonable line of action and this is what Russia has been advocating.
RT: But dialogue has not achieved anything so far. Isn't there now an overwhelming global sense that something has to be done to stop the killing of innocent people – what about intervention on humanitarian grounds, is that not acceptable to Moscow? I know that Moscow is very concerned about Chapter 7 leading to perhaps military intervention. But what about some form of intervention to stop the killing?
VC: In a way, the monitoring group which we are trying to maintain is a way of political intervention – of practical intervention – in trying to deter violence. Unfortunately, it has not happened, it has not been successful.
You said the dialogue has not achieved anything. The problem is the dialogue has not started yet. The opposition groups refuse to enter into dialogue with the Syrian government, which says it is prepared for dialogue. They should try that offer of the Syrian government to enter into dialogue. And this is a major missing link, a major impediment in the way of Kofi Annan’s activity.
You know, humanitarian intervention unfortunately only sounds humane, but the fact of the matter is that any military intervention for whatever reason is inevitably going to cause more bloodshed. And we know the greatest humanitarians in the world – the US and UK – intervened in Iraq, for instance, citing all sorts of noble pretexts, in that particular case – non-existent weapons of mass destruction. What it caused – 150 thousand civilian deaths alone, to say nothing about millions of refugees, displaced persons and the whole dislocation in the country. So, don’t be duped by humanitarian rhetoric. There is much more geopolitics in their policy in Syria than humanism. Unfortunately, the practical consequences of their policies there are that the conflict and bloodshed is not abating.
RT: You've mentioned geopolitics and I understand you mentioned the fact that what's happening in Syria is going to spread to Iran eventually. Can you explain that? That Iran is the eventual goal?
VC: I did refer to Iran, but in a slightly different context. I would not rule out that then they would move on to Iran, but I was not referring to that. In my remarks at the [Security] Council of the United Nations earlier today I was referring to their clear interest. And this is a major motivation of their policy and their effort to topple President Assad - in curbing Iranian influence in the Middle East and that entire region. And it is also a major motivation of the other Middle Eastern fighters for democracy – Saudi Arabia and Qatar – who are concerned about what they see as Iranian interests; in Bahrain as well.
They claim the Shia protests there is sort of Iranian-sponsored even though some observers – including your colleagues and journalists who have experience on the ground – believe that they happen to be genuine protests against a system which is not entirely democratic, to put it mildly. So, a clear geopolitical dimension is there in the policies of a number of countries, who are extremely aggressive vis-a-vis Syria. And it has nothing to do with the interests of the Syrian people.
RT: What is the worry for Moscow, all these geopolitical implications you’ve explained so clearly, why is Moscow so worried about this? In what way could Moscow be affected?
VC: We are not worried about geopolitical implications even though we believe that greater confrontation with Iran is hurting, is unnecessary and we are directly involved in efforts to resolve peacefully the problem of the Iranian nuclear program. And this growing tension between Iran, the West and the Saudis is not helpful.
Our concern is that the Syrian people have to suffer the consequences of this geopolitical struggle and our concern is that the focus of everybody’s policy must be the benefit of the Syrian people. And the only way they can put an end to this tragic conflict is to get to the negotiating table.
And there is good ground, there is a document which was a consensus document adopted by the “action group” - foreign ministers in Geneva - two and a half weeks ago which says that a transitional national body needs to be set up and it can not be set up by sanctions, it can not be set up by more pressure on just one side – the Syrian government, which is claiming that it is ready for such dialogue; it designated its representative for such a dialogue.
But so far the interest from the opposition is not there and we see extreme opposition groups; armed opposition groups resorting to more and more violence and even terrorist attacks like the one we saw yesterday in Damascus. This is not to say that the Syrian government has not resorted to excessive violence at times; they made very serious mistakes and blunders over the months but the time to end it is now. Unless we want to continue it for years, [we need to] enter into a dialogue.
RT: Russia is really stuck by its principles of non-intervention. Is there not a danger of being isolated, bearing in mind the continual vetoing of the sanctions of the UN Security Council and the supplying of military hardware to Syria. Of course Moscow says it is not being used against civilians, but what is it to do for Russia’s reputation and, indeed, its relations after this crisis is over?
VC: We’ll see. I think doing the right thing and not simply following somebody’s catastrophic policy is something which makes me proud and something which eventually will be borne out as the right course of action and the right policy under these very difficult circumstances. And about vetoes – if I am not mistaken, the US has cast 60 vetoes on the Palestinian issue alone. So, why don’t you question my American colleagues about the impact of the image of the US in the Middle East of those continuous vetoes?
Sometimes even vetoing their own presidential and secretary of state’s public statements. So, the veto is a part of the UN Charter and there is nothing wrong about casting it when you feel the need to do so.
RT: Can we talk about what happens next now? No agreement in the UN Security Council, but Russia has said that it would like to see the extension of the UN observer mission to Syria. But the monitors haven't made any visible impact on the mission so far. So what's the point in keeping the mission alive when so far it has failed?
VC: What would be the point of their departure? We think that we have at least more chances to get objective information if it is there If the situation were to improve, they would be on the ground already, so, they would be able to participate more actively in political process and also in dealing with the humanitarian situation. Pulling them out is going to entail negative consequences. Unfortunately, now and again we seem to be entering another diplomatic battle. Now we are going to have a discussion about really making it technically rollover without loading it with political conditions and implications.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Fri Jul 20, 2012 9:18 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.interfax
Interfax
July 20, 2012
U.S. plans to act on Syria bypassing UN send troubling signal - Russian diplomat
MOSCOW: Russia is concerned over plans announced by the United States to influence Damascus bypassing the UN Security Council.
"If such statements and such plans are elements of real politics, it sends quite a troubling signal to all of us, prompting us to think how the international community is going to respond to international conflicts," Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich said at a press briefing in Moscow on Friday.
A task facing all foreign players, "especially the members of the UN Security Council, is to use all of their resources and abide by decisions that were adopted collectively earlier," he said.
Lukashevich said he was speaking about decisions adopted by the UN Security Council's five permanent members and subsequently supported by the entire international community - Resolutions 2024 and 2043 and the Geneva communique.
U.S. Department of State spokesman Patrick Ventrell earlier gave a positive answer to a question about Washington's possible plans to act bypassing the UN Security Council.
Russia and China have blocked the resolution three times, he said.
The U.S. would like these countries to change their position, but they refuse to do so, Ventrell said.
The U.S. would continue working through the UN if there were a chance for new prospects regarding the position of Russia and China, he said.
But the U.S. has a broader strategy, and it has no intention of stopping to do what it has been doing because there is no resolution, he said.
------------
http://www.interfax
Interfax
July 20, 2012
EU has no right to inspect Russian planes, ships bound for Syria - expert
MOSCOW: The European Union's plans to inspect aircraft and ships for violations of the arms embargo imposed on Syria cannot be applied to Russian planes and ships, Roman Pukhov, the director of the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technology, told Interfax-AVN on Friday.
"Only aircraft and ships of the European Union are subject to this requirement. The EU has no international legal right to inspect aircraft and ships belonging to countries that are not its members, including Russia," Pukhov said.
Pukhov was commenting on media reports saying that the EU plans to adopt a resolution in Brussels on Monday to inspect aircraft and ships suspected of violating the arms embargo imposed on Syria.
It is impossible to imagine a situation in which a Russian ship sailing to Syria, whichever cargo it may be carrying, would be stopped and searched, he said.
"This is impossible in terms of law and in the military-technical context. It is absolutely impossible to imagine EU servicemen boarding Russian ships," he said.
Russian-Syrian military-technical cooperation is proceeding in strict compliance with international law, he said. "Syria is not under UN Security Council sanctions. Therefore arms deliveries to the Syrian authorities are not banned," Pukhov said.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Interfax
July 20, 2012
U.S. plans to act on Syria bypassing UN send troubling signal - Russian diplomat
MOSCOW: Russia is concerned over plans announced by the United States to influence Damascus bypassing the UN Security Council.
"If such statements and such plans are elements of real politics, it sends quite a troubling signal to all of us, prompting us to think how the international community is going to respond to international conflicts," Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich said at a press briefing in Moscow on Friday.
A task facing all foreign players, "especially the members of the UN Security Council, is to use all of their resources and abide by decisions that were adopted collectively earlier," he said.
Lukashevich said he was speaking about decisions adopted by the UN Security Council's five permanent members and subsequently supported by the entire international community - Resolutions 2024 and 2043 and the Geneva communique.
U.S. Department of State spokesman Patrick Ventrell earlier gave a positive answer to a question about Washington's possible plans to act bypassing the UN Security Council.
Russia and China have blocked the resolution three times, he said.
The U.S. would like these countries to change their position, but they refuse to do so, Ventrell said.
The U.S. would continue working through the UN if there were a chance for new prospects regarding the position of Russia and China, he said.
But the U.S. has a broader strategy, and it has no intention of stopping to do what it has been doing because there is no resolution, he said.
------------
http://www.interfax
Interfax
July 20, 2012
EU has no right to inspect Russian planes, ships bound for Syria - expert
MOSCOW: The European Union's plans to inspect aircraft and ships for violations of the arms embargo imposed on Syria cannot be applied to Russian planes and ships, Roman Pukhov, the director of the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technology, told Interfax-AVN on Friday.
"Only aircraft and ships of the European Union are subject to this requirement. The EU has no international legal right to inspect aircraft and ships belonging to countries that are not its members, including Russia," Pukhov said.
Pukhov was commenting on media reports saying that the EU plans to adopt a resolution in Brussels on Monday to inspect aircraft and ships suspected of violating the arms embargo imposed on Syria.
It is impossible to imagine a situation in which a Russian ship sailing to Syria, whichever cargo it may be carrying, would be stopped and searched, he said.
"This is impossible in terms of law and in the military-technical context. It is absolutely impossible to imagine EU servicemen boarding Russian ships," he said.
Russian-Syrian military-technical cooperation is proceeding in strict compliance with international law, he said. "Syria is not under UN Security Council sanctions. Therefore arms deliveries to the Syrian authorities are not banned," Pukhov said.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Fri Jul 20, 2012 7:18 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.civil.
Civil Georgia
July 19, 2012
Saakashvili Meets Turkish Defense Minister, Speaks of NATO Integration
Tbilisi: President Saakashvili met in Batumi with Turkish Defense Minister İsmet Yılmaz, who visited Georgia on July 18.
“Georgia’s relations with Turkey are developing very dynamically in all the sectors, including in the defense one,” Saakashvili said. “You know that 2014 has been declared as the year of NATO expansion and Georgia already has a real chance for full membership in NATO, which represents an important long-term security guarantee for us.”
“Turkey is one of the major supporters in our drive to join the NATO and for that we are very grateful [to Turkey], because it represents a historic chance for Georgia, for the region and for our good neighborly relations to make Georgia protected within this international organization [NATO].”
“Recently it [Georgia’s NATO membership] became more realistic than it has ever been in history,” Saakashvili said.
“We are also very grateful to Turkey because in the most difficult years, including after 2008 [war with Russia] cooperation was not suspended with Turkey in any of the spheres, including and especially in the defense sector; at that time our cooperation in defense sphere with many other countries was at a very low point, now it is back [to normal], but Turkey was a rare exception with whom this cooperation was not suspended for a single day, on the contrary this cooperation was further intensified and it was show of real support, real friendship by Turkey,” Saakashvili said.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Civil Georgia
July 19, 2012
Saakashvili Meets Turkish Defense Minister, Speaks of NATO Integration
Tbilisi: President Saakashvili met in Batumi with Turkish Defense Minister İsmet Yılmaz, who visited Georgia on July 18.
“Georgia’s relations with Turkey are developing very dynamically in all the sectors, including in the defense one,” Saakashvili said. “You know that 2014 has been declared as the year of NATO expansion and Georgia already has a real chance for full membership in NATO, which represents an important long-term security guarantee for us.”
“Turkey is one of the major supporters in our drive to join the NATO and for that we are very grateful [to Turkey], because it represents a historic chance for Georgia, for the region and for our good neighborly relations to make Georgia protected within this international organization [NATO].”
“Recently it [Georgia’s NATO membership] became more realistic than it has ever been in history,” Saakashvili said.
“We are also very grateful to Turkey because in the most difficult years, including after 2008 [war with Russia] cooperation was not suspended with Turkey in any of the spheres, including and especially in the defense sector; at that time our cooperation in defense sphere with many other countries was at a very low point, now it is back [to normal], but Turkey was a rare exception with whom this cooperation was not suspended for a single day, on the contrary this cooperation was further intensified and it was show of real support, real friendship by Turkey,” Saakashvili said.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Fri Jul 20, 2012 7:19 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://en.trend.
Trend News Agency
July 19, 2012
Azerbaijan, U.S. discuss military cooperation prospects
K. Zarbaliyeva
Baku: Azerbaijani Defense Minister, Colonel General Safar Abiyev received Commanding General of U.S. Army in Europe, Lt. Gen. Mark P. Hertling, the Azerbaijani Defense Ministry told Trend on Thursday.
At the meeting the sides discussed prospects of military cooperation between Azerbaijan and the U.S., as well as military and political situation in the region.
Trend News Agency
July 19, 2012
Azerbaijan, U.S. discuss military cooperation prospects
K. Zarbaliyeva
Baku: Azerbaijani Defense Minister, Colonel General Safar Abiyev received Commanding General of U.S. Army in Europe, Lt. Gen. Mark P. Hertling, the Azerbaijani Defense Ministry told Trend on Thursday.
At the meeting the sides discussed prospects of military cooperation between Azerbaijan and the U.S., as well as military and political situation in the region.
