5 New Messages
Digest #4463
Messages
Wed Aug 15, 2012 6:07 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://english.
Voice of Russia
August 15, 2012
The U.S. plans to form a new anti-Syrian coalition
Konstantin Garibov
The U.S. plans to step up cooperation with its NATO allies in order to topple the regime in Syria. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton discussed the issue during a phone conversation with colleagues from Britain, France, Germany and Turkey.
The sides involved in the talks also discussed measures which could be taken to provide extra help to the Syrian opposition. The urgency of the videoconference proves that the aim is to provide this assistance to the rebels as promptly as possible. They will get arms and all necessary equipment as well as new groups of hirelings to topple the Assad regime.
The VoR asked Mr. Boris Dolgov, expert for the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, to comment on the videoconference:
"This is just an attempt to repeat the Libyan scenario. Not so long ago Mrs. Clinton spoke about setting up a no-fly zone over some parts of Syria, which can be interpreted as an urge to invade the country. Enforcing a no-fly zone means to allow the destruction of the anti-missile defence system, air bombing and cruise missiles attacks. Since Russia and China have repeatedly vetoed the UNSC draft resolution allowing military intervention in Syria, the invasion- if it takes place - would mean the violation of the UN Charter."
By the way, those who used to enjoy the active support of the West in Libya have now joined rebels in Syria. It was reported on Tuesday that two field commanders who led an offensive against Muammar Gaddafi's stronghold in Tripoli. They brought some snipers and hirelings with them who know how to use heavy weaponry and mobile anti-missile defence complexes.
Foreign hirelings are stationed mainly in northern Syria where fights continue to gain control over Aleppo, the country’s financial centre.
Political analyst Stanislav Tarasov thinks that despite active support from abroad, the opposition will yet fail to achieve the results the West and some Gulf states want them to.
"The Syrian National Council based outside the country has failed to win enough support on Syrian territory. It means that this part of the Libya scenario proved unsuccessful. Neither had they managed to seize Aleppo and form an interim government there similar to the one in Libya's Beghazi."
With the help of its partners in Arab states the West has stepped up its propaganda war against the Assad regime. Earlier this week the web site of Saudi Arabia's Al Watan daily reported that it had interviewed Russia’s Presidential Envoy for the Middle East, Mikhail Bogdanov, who allegedly said that President Bashar Assad was ready to step down. Moscow condemned the daily for using sharp practices and blamed the authors of that sponsored publication for deliberately escalating tensions over the conflict in Syria.
============
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
August 15, 2012
The U.S. plans to form a new anti-Syrian coalition
Konstantin Garibov
The U.S. plans to step up cooperation with its NATO allies in order to topple the regime in Syria. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton discussed the issue during a phone conversation with colleagues from Britain, France, Germany and Turkey.
The sides involved in the talks also discussed measures which could be taken to provide extra help to the Syrian opposition. The urgency of the videoconference proves that the aim is to provide this assistance to the rebels as promptly as possible. They will get arms and all necessary equipment as well as new groups of hirelings to topple the Assad regime.
The VoR asked Mr. Boris Dolgov, expert for the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, to comment on the videoconference:
"This is just an attempt to repeat the Libyan scenario. Not so long ago Mrs. Clinton spoke about setting up a no-fly zone over some parts of Syria, which can be interpreted as an urge to invade the country. Enforcing a no-fly zone means to allow the destruction of the anti-missile defence system, air bombing and cruise missiles attacks. Since Russia and China have repeatedly vetoed the UNSC draft resolution allowing military intervention in Syria, the invasion- if it takes place - would mean the violation of the UN Charter."
By the way, those who used to enjoy the active support of the West in Libya have now joined rebels in Syria. It was reported on Tuesday that two field commanders who led an offensive against Muammar Gaddafi's stronghold in Tripoli. They brought some snipers and hirelings with them who know how to use heavy weaponry and mobile anti-missile defence complexes.
Foreign hirelings are stationed mainly in northern Syria where fights continue to gain control over Aleppo, the country’s financial centre.
Political analyst Stanislav Tarasov thinks that despite active support from abroad, the opposition will yet fail to achieve the results the West and some Gulf states want them to.
"The Syrian National Council based outside the country has failed to win enough support on Syrian territory. It means that this part of the Libya scenario proved unsuccessful. Neither had they managed to seize Aleppo and form an interim government there similar to the one in Libya's Beghazi."
With the help of its partners in Arab states the West has stepped up its propaganda war against the Assad regime. Earlier this week the web site of Saudi Arabia's Al Watan daily reported that it had interviewed Russia’s Presidential Envoy for the Middle East, Mikhail Bogdanov, who allegedly said that President Bashar Assad was ready to step down. Moscow condemned the daily for using sharp practices and blamed the authors of that sponsored publication for deliberately escalating tensions over the conflict in Syria.
============
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@
============
Wed Aug 15, 2012 6:42 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.dailytim
Daily Times
August 14, 2012
The Western Spring’s collision with Central Asia
Farooq Yousaf
====
With recent meetings and joint statements at the SCO, it is obvious that the body, unlike NATO, has a peaceful Asian region on its agenda. The recent SCO summit sent out a clear message that it wants a peaceful and stable Afghanistan soon after the evacuation of the coalition forces. Such an agenda may directly collide with that of NATO’s. While NATO is seeking further military bases and installations, the SCO seeks peace and not conflict. The SCO clearly stood against the Libyan intervention and is now opposed to such a type of intrusion in Syria.
[I]n this new round of the New Great Game, the ‘democracy-seeking’ West may encourage some Arab Spring winds to hit the Silk Road.
====
With the initial outburst of the Arab Spring in Tunisia and Egypt, and the fatal consequences in a few states such as Libya, a wave of fear ran through Middle Eastern and Central Asian states. The fear, initially of people’s reaction, turned into extremist elements taking over the helm of state affairs. This led to spontaneous bars on social media and freedom of expression in many of these states, not to forget Egypt that had strict filters over usage of the internet and the social media in order to curb any possible movement against the Mubarak regime. Interesting to note in many of these states were the common factors: dictatorship, control over the state media and internet, high level of poverty and unemployment and no room for political activity from opposition parties.
The reason I include the Central Asian region in my analysis is that because the region constitutes the heart of Asia, coupled with providing the main route to the New Silk Route, a future venture that may lead to a faceoff between Washington and Moscow. The formation of the region’s states makes it interesting to monitor for a neutral observer. Although US national foreign policy would never keep the region at its top priority, implicit indications from the word go provided a fair picture of what the US was after. The former US National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, once referred to Central Asia as a hotbed of conflict and one of the most strategically important parts of the world, as the ‘Eurasian Balkans’.
One may get the impression that Central Asia is traditionally a Russian-operated and influenced region, but that is not the case. States like Uzbekistan make the situation complex where its president, Islam Karimov, even with a dark history on his back, is supported by the US administration, solely because of his sour ties with Moscow. Tajikistan is also somewhat similar. People mostly rely on Russia for their livelihoods and in turn make up a good chunk of their country’s GDP and foreign reserves from what they earn there. But on the state level, recent events, such as the pilot sentencing saga, where two Russian and Estonian pilots were arrested and jailed on charges of smuggling, depict that the policy makers want to obtain the US’s soft corner for further aid and support.
Tackling this situation, Russia along with the help of China, has somewhat indicated and strived towards a New World Order by channelising the foundation and functioning of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). The SCO, comprising Russia, China, four Central Asian states excluding Turkmenistan, and observer members including India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Turkmenistan and Mongolia, can develop into an influential regional watchdog on the pattern of NATO.
With recent meetings and joint statements at the SCO, it is obvious that the body, unlike NATO, has a peaceful Asian region on its agenda. The recent SCO summit sent out a clear message that it wants a peaceful and stable Afghanistan soon after the evacuation of the coalition forces. Such an agenda may directly collide with that of NATO’s. While NATO is seeking further military bases and installations, the SCO seeks peace and not conflict. The SCO clearly stood against the Libyan intervention and is now opposed to such a type of intrusion in Syria. The SCO, mainly Russia and China, have been vocal in all major sanction resolutions against Iran and Syria in the United Nations Security Council, something not going well with NATO. Finally, it would do its best to prevent any conflict in the larger Eurasian region in order to maintain peace and stability.
The four Central Asian players involved with the SCO were also invited to the NATO Chicago summit. The message was simple. As three Central Asian states — Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan — provide alternative supply routes to the NATO forces, they could well be beneficial members not only for this supply but also for a long-term agenda, including natural resources, military bases and regional-political manipulation.
Breaking these states off from SCO for NATO may take the region on a collision course in the form of the New Great Game. With these states under the wings of Russia and China, such a venture may reap no dividends, as both these powers would not make any bargain on regional stability, which in turn is directly related to economic prosperity and development. This makes it clear that in this new round of the New Great Game, the ‘democracy-seeking’ West may encourage some Arab Spring winds to hit the Silk Road.
The writer is a research analyst, programme consultant and editor at the Centre for Research and Security Studies, Islamabad. Presently, he is pursuing his Masters in Public Policy from Germany. He can be reached at farooq@crss.
============
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@
============
Daily Times
August 14, 2012
The Western Spring’s collision with Central Asia
Farooq Yousaf
====
With recent meetings and joint statements at the SCO, it is obvious that the body, unlike NATO, has a peaceful Asian region on its agenda. The recent SCO summit sent out a clear message that it wants a peaceful and stable Afghanistan soon after the evacuation of the coalition forces. Such an agenda may directly collide with that of NATO’s. While NATO is seeking further military bases and installations, the SCO seeks peace and not conflict. The SCO clearly stood against the Libyan intervention and is now opposed to such a type of intrusion in Syria.
[I]n this new round of the New Great Game, the ‘democracy-seeking’ West may encourage some Arab Spring winds to hit the Silk Road.
====
With the initial outburst of the Arab Spring in Tunisia and Egypt, and the fatal consequences in a few states such as Libya, a wave of fear ran through Middle Eastern and Central Asian states. The fear, initially of people’s reaction, turned into extremist elements taking over the helm of state affairs. This led to spontaneous bars on social media and freedom of expression in many of these states, not to forget Egypt that had strict filters over usage of the internet and the social media in order to curb any possible movement against the Mubarak regime. Interesting to note in many of these states were the common factors: dictatorship, control over the state media and internet, high level of poverty and unemployment and no room for political activity from opposition parties.
The reason I include the Central Asian region in my analysis is that because the region constitutes the heart of Asia, coupled with providing the main route to the New Silk Route, a future venture that may lead to a faceoff between Washington and Moscow. The formation of the region’s states makes it interesting to monitor for a neutral observer. Although US national foreign policy would never keep the region at its top priority, implicit indications from the word go provided a fair picture of what the US was after. The former US National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, once referred to Central Asia as a hotbed of conflict and one of the most strategically important parts of the world, as the ‘Eurasian Balkans’.
One may get the impression that Central Asia is traditionally a Russian-operated and influenced region, but that is not the case. States like Uzbekistan make the situation complex where its president, Islam Karimov, even with a dark history on his back, is supported by the US administration, solely because of his sour ties with Moscow. Tajikistan is also somewhat similar. People mostly rely on Russia for their livelihoods and in turn make up a good chunk of their country’s GDP and foreign reserves from what they earn there. But on the state level, recent events, such as the pilot sentencing saga, where two Russian and Estonian pilots were arrested and jailed on charges of smuggling, depict that the policy makers want to obtain the US’s soft corner for further aid and support.
Tackling this situation, Russia along with the help of China, has somewhat indicated and strived towards a New World Order by channelising the foundation and functioning of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). The SCO, comprising Russia, China, four Central Asian states excluding Turkmenistan, and observer members including India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Turkmenistan and Mongolia, can develop into an influential regional watchdog on the pattern of NATO.
With recent meetings and joint statements at the SCO, it is obvious that the body, unlike NATO, has a peaceful Asian region on its agenda. The recent SCO summit sent out a clear message that it wants a peaceful and stable Afghanistan soon after the evacuation of the coalition forces. Such an agenda may directly collide with that of NATO’s. While NATO is seeking further military bases and installations, the SCO seeks peace and not conflict. The SCO clearly stood against the Libyan intervention and is now opposed to such a type of intrusion in Syria. The SCO, mainly Russia and China, have been vocal in all major sanction resolutions against Iran and Syria in the United Nations Security Council, something not going well with NATO. Finally, it would do its best to prevent any conflict in the larger Eurasian region in order to maintain peace and stability.
The four Central Asian players involved with the SCO were also invited to the NATO Chicago summit. The message was simple. As three Central Asian states — Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan — provide alternative supply routes to the NATO forces, they could well be beneficial members not only for this supply but also for a long-term agenda, including natural resources, military bases and regional-political manipulation.
Breaking these states off from SCO for NATO may take the region on a collision course in the form of the New Great Game. With these states under the wings of Russia and China, such a venture may reap no dividends, as both these powers would not make any bargain on regional stability, which in turn is directly related to economic prosperity and development. This makes it clear that in this new round of the New Great Game, the ‘democracy-seeking’ West may encourage some Arab Spring winds to hit the Silk Road.
The writer is a research analyst, programme consultant and editor at the Centre for Research and Security Studies, Islamabad. Presently, he is pursuing his Masters in Public Policy from Germany. He can be reached at farooq@crss.
============
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@
============
Wed Aug 15, 2012 6:42 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://english.
Voice of Russia
August 15, 2012
Will the US let the Syrian people determine their future?
Boris Volkhonsky
====
Looking back at previous instances when the US let other peoples "determine their future", we can clearly see the examples of Iraq, Libya and the ongoing "determination of their future" in Afghanistan. In none of those cases was the future (or is going to be) determined by the free will of the people without outside intervention. But "Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi"("What is legitimate for Jove (Jupiter), is not legitimate for oxen"), so the US will fight to its last resorts to preserve the right to determine what is good or bad for others, and never let other nations (least of all, Iran) to do the same.
====
On Tuesday, as reported by AFP, the US accused Iran of setting up a pro-regime militia in Syria. The accusations were voiced during a press conference of US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey.
"There's now an indication that they're trying to develop – or trying to train a militia within Syria to be able to fight on behalf of the regime," said Leon Panetta. "We are seeing a growing presence by Iran and that is of deep concern to us that that's taking place."
"We do not think that Iran ought to play that role at this moment in time, that's dangerous," Panetta went on saying and urged Tehran to stay out of the conflict: "Our hope is that Iran thinks better about how much they do want to get involved. The Syrian people ought to determine their future, not Iran."
Echoing these words, General Dempsey added that "The Syrian army has been fighting now for about 18 months or so. And any army would be taxed with that kind of pace...That'
Sounds assuring – the Iranian culprits training militants that constitute the last hope for the doomed regime of Bashar al-Assad. And the conclusion the public is forced to come to is the only one possible – the US should interfere and stop any foreign (Iranian) involvement in Syrian affairs.
But this is only how it sounds. For anyone who has a minimal knowledge of what is going on in and around Syria, the Pentagon's top brass' accusations addressed to Iran only once again underline the notorious double standard policy so common of the US establishment.
It is no secret that Iran and Syria are closest allies. And there is absolutely nothing wrong in cooperation between the two. Why should not such cooperation include assistance in military training when such training is being rendered to scores of countries the world over, including those that are as far from the standards of "democracy" and "human rights" as the countries in question?
More so, such accusations could pass as reasonable IF the US and its allies were not already deeply involved in Syrian affairs. While the US itself is allegedly rendering only "non-lethal" support to Syrian rebels (including communication equipment), there have been numerous reports that its allies – Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey – have been supporting the rebels in a much more substantial way, including shipments of armaments. Isn't it a direct violation of Leon Panetta's wish that "the Syrian people ought to determine their future" themselves? Of course if by "Syrian people" he understands rebels only, refusing to grant similar status to Bashar Assad and his supporters.
Looking back at previous instances when the US let other peoples "determine their future", we can clearly see the examples of Iraq, Libya and the ongoing "determination of their future" in Afghanistan. In none of those cases was the future (or is going to be) determined by the free will of the people without outside intervention. But "Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi"("What is legitimate for Jove (Jupiter), is not legitimate for oxen"), so the US will fight to its last resorts to preserve the right to determine what is good or bad for others, and never let other nations (least of all, Iran) to do the same. In the case of Syria, the US line is obvious – as Leon Panetta himself said during the same briefing, Bashar Assad's "regime... ultimately is going to come down." So, the limits for the Syrian people's determination are already set.
In fact, Iranian cooperation with Syria is totally legitimate state-to-state interaction, while all the overt and covert assistance rendered to the so called "rebel" means only direct instigation of throat-cutting thugs and Al Qaeda-like terrorists. Maybe the US Defense Secretary means exactly this? But even then, should he have thought twice before opening the Pandora box and giving Syrian radicals a carte blanche?
============
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
August 15, 2012
Will the US let the Syrian people determine their future?
Boris Volkhonsky
====
Looking back at previous instances when the US let other peoples "determine their future", we can clearly see the examples of Iraq, Libya and the ongoing "determination of their future" in Afghanistan. In none of those cases was the future (or is going to be) determined by the free will of the people without outside intervention. But "Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi"("What is legitimate for Jove (Jupiter), is not legitimate for oxen"), so the US will fight to its last resorts to preserve the right to determine what is good or bad for others, and never let other nations (least of all, Iran) to do the same.
====
On Tuesday, as reported by AFP, the US accused Iran of setting up a pro-regime militia in Syria. The accusations were voiced during a press conference of US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey.
"There's now an indication that they're trying to develop – or trying to train a militia within Syria to be able to fight on behalf of the regime," said Leon Panetta. "We are seeing a growing presence by Iran and that is of deep concern to us that that's taking place."
"We do not think that Iran ought to play that role at this moment in time, that's dangerous," Panetta went on saying and urged Tehran to stay out of the conflict: "Our hope is that Iran thinks better about how much they do want to get involved. The Syrian people ought to determine their future, not Iran."
Echoing these words, General Dempsey added that "The Syrian army has been fighting now for about 18 months or so. And any army would be taxed with that kind of pace...That'
Sounds assuring – the Iranian culprits training militants that constitute the last hope for the doomed regime of Bashar al-Assad. And the conclusion the public is forced to come to is the only one possible – the US should interfere and stop any foreign (Iranian) involvement in Syrian affairs.
But this is only how it sounds. For anyone who has a minimal knowledge of what is going on in and around Syria, the Pentagon's top brass' accusations addressed to Iran only once again underline the notorious double standard policy so common of the US establishment.
It is no secret that Iran and Syria are closest allies. And there is absolutely nothing wrong in cooperation between the two. Why should not such cooperation include assistance in military training when such training is being rendered to scores of countries the world over, including those that are as far from the standards of "democracy" and "human rights" as the countries in question?
More so, such accusations could pass as reasonable IF the US and its allies were not already deeply involved in Syrian affairs. While the US itself is allegedly rendering only "non-lethal" support to Syrian rebels (including communication equipment), there have been numerous reports that its allies – Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey – have been supporting the rebels in a much more substantial way, including shipments of armaments. Isn't it a direct violation of Leon Panetta's wish that "the Syrian people ought to determine their future" themselves? Of course if by "Syrian people" he understands rebels only, refusing to grant similar status to Bashar Assad and his supporters.
Looking back at previous instances when the US let other peoples "determine their future", we can clearly see the examples of Iraq, Libya and the ongoing "determination of their future" in Afghanistan. In none of those cases was the future (or is going to be) determined by the free will of the people without outside intervention. But "Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi"("What is legitimate for Jove (Jupiter), is not legitimate for oxen"), so the US will fight to its last resorts to preserve the right to determine what is good or bad for others, and never let other nations (least of all, Iran) to do the same. In the case of Syria, the US line is obvious – as Leon Panetta himself said during the same briefing, Bashar Assad's "regime... ultimately is going to come down." So, the limits for the Syrian people's determination are already set.
In fact, Iranian cooperation with Syria is totally legitimate state-to-state interaction, while all the overt and covert assistance rendered to the so called "rebel" means only direct instigation of throat-cutting thugs and Al Qaeda-like terrorists. Maybe the US Defense Secretary means exactly this? But even then, should he have thought twice before opening the Pandora box and giving Syrian radicals a carte blanche?
============
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@
============
Wed Aug 15, 2012 6:42 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.globalti
Global Times
August 14, 2012
Peace still on table in Syria as China scrambles to set up talks
By Gao Lei
====
The US and some Western and Gulf countries are now exploring the option of imposing a no-fly zone in Syria, which, as witnessed in Libya, is an important step to enable foreign military intervention. China will need this mediation opportunity to counter that idea and to give undecided countries second thoughts on which approach is more feasible.
====
According to the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Buthaina Shaaban, special envoy for and political and media advisor of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, has been invited to Beijing Tuesday. The ministry also stated that it will invite members of the Syrian opposition to come to Beijing on a later date.
These moves are widely believed to be aimed at persuading the Syrian sides to get back to the negotiation table and solve their differences through a political solution. But such hopes suffered a heavy blow after UN Special Envoy Kofi Annan quit his job earlier this month. This has prompted observers to question the effectiveness of China's mediation efforts.
China's influence in the Middle East is certainly weaker than other major world powers like the US and Russia. It's natural that there are doubts on what China can achieve through its talks with the Assad regime and the Syrian opposition. China's efforts will not bear fruits instantly after just one round of talks.
However, China will keep trying. Solving the Syrian crisis through a political solution has always been China's position. It will work to explore every possibility, however thin.
Though Annan has left the special envoy post, the UN hasn't halted its mission. It has been actively seeking a replacement for Annan. The leaders of some Western countries, like French President François Hollande, have also agreed to solve the Syrian crisis through talk rather than war.
For China, a major supporter of the UN mission, its mediation efforts this time are intended to send a bold signal to the international community that the possibility of a political solution is still on the table, and that China is determined to continuously work with the UN to broker such a deal in Syria.
The US and some Western and Gulf countries are now exploring the option of imposing a no-fly zone in Syria, which, as witnessed in Libya, is an important step to enable foreign military intervention. China will need this mediation opportunity to counter that idea and to give undecided countries second thoughts on which approach is more feasible.
There are several issues that will pose serious challenges to efforts to broker a political solution.
First, making a political solution effective will require the cooperation of all parties in Syria. But at this stage, the will to get back to the negotiation table is weak on both sides. They have been pouring more efforts onto the battlefield than in setting up talks, because both believe that victory is within reach. The longer they are at war, the harder it will be for them to talk.
Second, the largely divided opposition makes it difficult for China or the UN to carry out effective mediation work. For instance, there is confusion in China as to which opposition group the Chinese government should make contact with.
While the Syrian National Council, based mainly outside Syria, is widely perceived as a representative of the rebel movement, does it truly have authority over groups and factions that have been operating inside Syria like the Free Syrian Army? Should China's mediation also include representatives from other opposition groups?
While China is making its efforts, some countries are paving the way for military intervention, including supplying arms. The more weapons the opposition receives, the more confident they grow of an ultimate military triumph.
The opposition will increasingly prefer war over talks, but Assad won't easily surrender either. This will eventually deadlock both sides in a cycle of conflict, blocking the way to a peaceful solution and risking more people's lives.
Due to China's lack of influence and channels to present its argument in full, its struggle to stop bloodshed in Syria has been constantly misinterpreted by some countries that are willing to throw Assad out at any cost and have been actively promoting their stance to the international community.
This will not only undermine China's effort but even leave China isolated. Chinese policymakers should learn from this, and try to win understanding and support to its stance on Syria through various international platforms.
For instance, China can put forward this issue at developing country-orientated platforms like the Non-Aligned Movement or BRICS.
Most developing countries these days know that political reforms are a much better option than revolution induced by foreign intervention. China's stance will win support there relatively easily.
By gathering such supports, China will not only find itself better positioned when confronted by similar issues, but also draw more nations to defend the UN principles from being violated by a few super powers.
The article was compiled by Global Times reporter Gao Lei based on an interview with He Wenping, director of the African Studies at the Institute of West Asian and African Studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.
============
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@
============
Global Times
August 14, 2012
Peace still on table in Syria as China scrambles to set up talks
By Gao Lei
====
The US and some Western and Gulf countries are now exploring the option of imposing a no-fly zone in Syria, which, as witnessed in Libya, is an important step to enable foreign military intervention. China will need this mediation opportunity to counter that idea and to give undecided countries second thoughts on which approach is more feasible.
====
According to the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Buthaina Shaaban, special envoy for and political and media advisor of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, has been invited to Beijing Tuesday. The ministry also stated that it will invite members of the Syrian opposition to come to Beijing on a later date.
These moves are widely believed to be aimed at persuading the Syrian sides to get back to the negotiation table and solve their differences through a political solution. But such hopes suffered a heavy blow after UN Special Envoy Kofi Annan quit his job earlier this month. This has prompted observers to question the effectiveness of China's mediation efforts.
China's influence in the Middle East is certainly weaker than other major world powers like the US and Russia. It's natural that there are doubts on what China can achieve through its talks with the Assad regime and the Syrian opposition. China's efforts will not bear fruits instantly after just one round of talks.
However, China will keep trying. Solving the Syrian crisis through a political solution has always been China's position. It will work to explore every possibility, however thin.
Though Annan has left the special envoy post, the UN hasn't halted its mission. It has been actively seeking a replacement for Annan. The leaders of some Western countries, like French President François Hollande, have also agreed to solve the Syrian crisis through talk rather than war.
For China, a major supporter of the UN mission, its mediation efforts this time are intended to send a bold signal to the international community that the possibility of a political solution is still on the table, and that China is determined to continuously work with the UN to broker such a deal in Syria.
The US and some Western and Gulf countries are now exploring the option of imposing a no-fly zone in Syria, which, as witnessed in Libya, is an important step to enable foreign military intervention. China will need this mediation opportunity to counter that idea and to give undecided countries second thoughts on which approach is more feasible.
There are several issues that will pose serious challenges to efforts to broker a political solution.
First, making a political solution effective will require the cooperation of all parties in Syria. But at this stage, the will to get back to the negotiation table is weak on both sides. They have been pouring more efforts onto the battlefield than in setting up talks, because both believe that victory is within reach. The longer they are at war, the harder it will be for them to talk.
Second, the largely divided opposition makes it difficult for China or the UN to carry out effective mediation work. For instance, there is confusion in China as to which opposition group the Chinese government should make contact with.
While the Syrian National Council, based mainly outside Syria, is widely perceived as a representative of the rebel movement, does it truly have authority over groups and factions that have been operating inside Syria like the Free Syrian Army? Should China's mediation also include representatives from other opposition groups?
While China is making its efforts, some countries are paving the way for military intervention, including supplying arms. The more weapons the opposition receives, the more confident they grow of an ultimate military triumph.
The opposition will increasingly prefer war over talks, but Assad won't easily surrender either. This will eventually deadlock both sides in a cycle of conflict, blocking the way to a peaceful solution and risking more people's lives.
Due to China's lack of influence and channels to present its argument in full, its struggle to stop bloodshed in Syria has been constantly misinterpreted by some countries that are willing to throw Assad out at any cost and have been actively promoting their stance to the international community.
This will not only undermine China's effort but even leave China isolated. Chinese policymakers should learn from this, and try to win understanding and support to its stance on Syria through various international platforms.
For instance, China can put forward this issue at developing country-orientated platforms like the Non-Aligned Movement or BRICS.
Most developing countries these days know that political reforms are a much better option than revolution induced by foreign intervention. China's stance will win support there relatively easily.
By gathering such supports, China will not only find itself better positioned when confronted by similar issues, but also draw more nations to defend the UN principles from being violated by a few super powers.
The article was compiled by Global Times reporter Gao Lei based on an interview with He Wenping, director of the African Studies at the Institute of West Asian and African Studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.
============
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@
============
Wed Aug 15, 2012 6:42 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://indrus.
Russia & India Report
August 15, 2012
China warns US about Syrian quagmire
M K Bhadrakumar
China accused the US of pursuing the geopolitical agenda of “regime change” in Syria and a break-up of Iran’s alliance with Syria with a view to retaining its lead role in the region.
Syria will still be split into pieces because of various forces fighting for their own interests. Source: Press Photo
When you hold the inaugural round of a strategic dialogue regarding the hottest spot on the planet today with the only superpower left in the world, it ought to be cause celebre. Yet, if you downplay it, all but ignore it and move on with mundane life, there must be good reason for it.
That is what China has done. Although the inaugural round of the China-United States Middle East Dialogue took place in Beijing on Tuesday, we learn about it largely from the Media Note of the US state department. Although, the meeting was held at the highest possible foreign-office level (next to the foreign minister) – Zhai Jun, vice foreign minister from the Chinese side and Wendy Sherman, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs from the American side.
The Media Note insists that the discussions were “constructive” and dwelt on ways to “promote greater cooperation” between the US and China on “regional and global challenges.” Energy security, unsurprisingly, figured. Indeed, the two sides discussed “pressing issues in the Middle East, with particular attention to Iran and Syria.” The Media Note said the US “reiterated its commitment to working together to build a cooperative partnership with China and welcomed China playing a more active and positive role in world affairs.”
But it said not a word about what the Chinese side said or how it responded, or whether the two sides could agree on anything at all. It was all pure discussion, apparently. An intelligent guess would be that Washington and Beijing have a hard time agreeing on the Middle East situation.
In the run-up to Sherman’s visit, Xinhua carried a commentary reiterating that the Syrian crisis is quintessentially a US-Iran confrontation ensuing from Washington’s attempt to break the “axis of resistance” in the region (read Iran-Syria-Hezbolla
It estimates that the “axis of resistance” may already have weakened, but that’s small comfort since the US may still run into Iran’s resistance and fail to realize its objective of dominating the region.
What comes as a stunner, however, is a hard-hitting commentary featured in the People’s Daily on the day the China-US dialogue on the Middle East took place in Beijing. It accused the US of pursuing the geopolitical agenda of “regime change” in Syria and a break-up of Iran’s alliance with Syria with a view to retaining its lead role in the region.
It noted: “Changing the regime of a sovereign country by external force has been the consistent foreign practice of the United States since the Cold War. The process will be cruel to Syrian people and the consequence will be calamitous to the state and even the world peace.”
The commentary offered an assessment of the ground situation in Syria. It said the regime may have lost some ground lately but a “time consuming war” is in the offing. The opposition’s gains (“supported by external forces”) don’t add up in the final analysis, because they are still “leaderless and divided into around 100 factions.”
This is a recipe for fragmentation of the country. “Syria will still be split into pieces because of various forces fighting for their own interests. Syria will suffer from ethnic cleansing, refugee flows, and humanitarian catastrophe. Al Qaeda will also take advantage of the chaotic situation.”
Besides, the Syrian cauldron will spill over into Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, Iran and Turkey, given the “complicated contradictions between Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds.” The result will be a “large-scale regional clash.”
The commentary warns the US from opening a Pandora’s box as it could get “stuck in a new quagmire” (after Iraq and Afghanistan)
Interestingly, the Chinese media assessment is that Washington is still undecided about imposing a “no-fly zone” over Syria, but it is Ankara that is pushing the envelope.
The Chinese commentaries echo many of the opinions aired by the well-known Russian scholar of the Middle East Evgeniy Primakov (former prime minister and foreign minister) in a recent interview by the government daily Rossiskaya Gazeta.
Russia & India Report
August 15, 2012
China warns US about Syrian quagmire
M K Bhadrakumar
China accused the US of pursuing the geopolitical agenda of “regime change” in Syria and a break-up of Iran’s alliance with Syria with a view to retaining its lead role in the region.
Syria will still be split into pieces because of various forces fighting for their own interests. Source: Press Photo
When you hold the inaugural round of a strategic dialogue regarding the hottest spot on the planet today with the only superpower left in the world, it ought to be cause celebre. Yet, if you downplay it, all but ignore it and move on with mundane life, there must be good reason for it.
That is what China has done. Although the inaugural round of the China-United States Middle East Dialogue took place in Beijing on Tuesday, we learn about it largely from the Media Note of the US state department. Although, the meeting was held at the highest possible foreign-office level (next to the foreign minister) – Zhai Jun, vice foreign minister from the Chinese side and Wendy Sherman, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs from the American side.
The Media Note insists that the discussions were “constructive” and dwelt on ways to “promote greater cooperation” between the US and China on “regional and global challenges.” Energy security, unsurprisingly, figured. Indeed, the two sides discussed “pressing issues in the Middle East, with particular attention to Iran and Syria.” The Media Note said the US “reiterated its commitment to working together to build a cooperative partnership with China and welcomed China playing a more active and positive role in world affairs.”
But it said not a word about what the Chinese side said or how it responded, or whether the two sides could agree on anything at all. It was all pure discussion, apparently. An intelligent guess would be that Washington and Beijing have a hard time agreeing on the Middle East situation.
In the run-up to Sherman’s visit, Xinhua carried a commentary reiterating that the Syrian crisis is quintessentially a US-Iran confrontation ensuing from Washington’s attempt to break the “axis of resistance” in the region (read Iran-Syria-Hezbolla
It estimates that the “axis of resistance” may already have weakened, but that’s small comfort since the US may still run into Iran’s resistance and fail to realize its objective of dominating the region.
What comes as a stunner, however, is a hard-hitting commentary featured in the People’s Daily on the day the China-US dialogue on the Middle East took place in Beijing. It accused the US of pursuing the geopolitical agenda of “regime change” in Syria and a break-up of Iran’s alliance with Syria with a view to retaining its lead role in the region.
It noted: “Changing the regime of a sovereign country by external force has been the consistent foreign practice of the United States since the Cold War. The process will be cruel to Syrian people and the consequence will be calamitous to the state and even the world peace.”
The commentary offered an assessment of the ground situation in Syria. It said the regime may have lost some ground lately but a “time consuming war” is in the offing. The opposition’s gains (“supported by external forces”) don’t add up in the final analysis, because they are still “leaderless and divided into around 100 factions.”
This is a recipe for fragmentation of the country. “Syria will still be split into pieces because of various forces fighting for their own interests. Syria will suffer from ethnic cleansing, refugee flows, and humanitarian catastrophe. Al Qaeda will also take advantage of the chaotic situation.”
Besides, the Syrian cauldron will spill over into Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, Iran and Turkey, given the “complicated contradictions between Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds.” The result will be a “large-scale regional clash.”
The commentary warns the US from opening a Pandora’s box as it could get “stuck in a new quagmire” (after Iraq and Afghanistan)
Interestingly, the Chinese media assessment is that Washington is still undecided about imposing a “no-fly zone” over Syria, but it is Ankara that is pushing the envelope.
The Chinese commentaries echo many of the opinions aired by the well-known Russian scholar of the Middle East Evgeniy Primakov (former prime minister and foreign minister) in a recent interview by the government daily Rossiskaya Gazeta.
