This article is copyright © by admin: Wed May 22 16:59:45 UTC 2013

hello the press room

Israeli officials say they won’t warn the U.S. if they decide to launch a pre-emptive strike against Iranian nuclear facilities, one U.S. intelligence official familiar with the discussions told the Associated Press. The pronouncement, delivered in a series of private, top-level conversations, sets a tense tone ahead of meetings in the coming days at the White House and Capitol Hill.

Israeli officials said that if they eventually decide a strike is necessary, they would keep the Americans in the dark to decrease the likelihood that the U.S. would be held responsible for failing to stop Israel’s potential attack. The U.S. has been working with the Israelis for months to persuade them that an attack would be only a temporary setback to Iran’s nuclear program.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak delivered the message to a series of top-level U.S. visitors to the country, including the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the White House national security adviser and the director of national intelligence, and top U.S. lawmakers, all trying to close the trust gap between Israel and the U.S. over how to deal with Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

Netanyahu delivered the same message to all the Americans who have traveled to Israel for talks, the U.S. official said.

The official spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive strategic negotiations.

The White House did not respond to requests for comment, and the Pentagon and Office of Director of National Intelligence declined to comment, as did the Israeli Embassy.

Iran claims its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, but the International Atomic Energy Agency has raised alarms that its uranium enrichment program might be a precursor to building nuclear weapons. The US has said it does not know whether the government has decided to weaponize its nuclear material and put it on a missile or other delivery device.

The secret warning is likely to worry US officials and begin the high level meetings with Israel and the US far apart on how to handle Iran.

But the apparent decision to keep the U.S. in the dark also stems from Israel’s frustration with the White House. After a visit by National Security Adviser Tom Donilon in particular, they became convinced the Americans would neither take military action, nor go along with unilateral action by Israel against Iran. The Israelis concluded they would have to conduct a strike unilaterally — a point they are likely to hammer home in a series of meetings over the next two weeks in Washington, the official said.

Barak will meet with top administration and congressional officials during his visit. Netanyahu arrives in Washington for meetings with President Barack Obama next week.

The behind-the-scenes warning belies the publicly united front the two sides have attempted to craft with the shuttle diplomacy to each other’s capitals.

« It’s unprecedented outreach to Israel to make sure we are working together to develop the plan to deter Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, » and to keep them from exporting terrorism, said Maryland Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee.

He traveled there with the intelligence committee chairman, Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., to meet Israel’s prime minister and defense minister, along with other officials.

« We talked about the fact that sanctions are working and they are going to get a lot more aggressive, » Ruppersberger added.

They also discussed talked about presenting a unified front to Iran, to counter the media reports that the two countries are at odds over how and when to attack Iran.

« We have to learn from North Korea. All those (peace) talks and stalling and they developed a nuclear weapon, » he said. « We are going to send a message, enough is enough, the stalling is over. … All options are on the table. »

« I got the sense that Israel is incredibly serious about a strike on their nuclear weapons program, » Rogers told CNN on Monday. « It’s their calculus that the administration … is not serious about a real military consequence to Iran moving forward.

« They believe they’re going to have to make a decision on their own, given the current posture of the United States, » he added.

U.S. intelligence and special operations officials have tried to keep a dialogue going with Israel, despite the high-level impasse, sharing with them options such as allowing Israel to use U.S. bases in the region from which to launch such a strike, as a way to make sure the Israelis give the Americans a heads-up, according to the U.S. official, and a former U.S. official with knowledge of the communications

Cooperation has improved on sharing of intelligence in the region, according to one current and one former U.S. official. Israel is providing key information on Syria for instance, now that the U.S. has closed its embassy and pulled out both its diplomats and intelligence officials stationed there, the U.S. official said.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/27/israelis-reportedly-dont-plan-to-notify-us-if-decision-made-to-strike-iran/

This article is copyright © by admin: Wed May 22 16:59:45 UTC 2013

hello the press room

To listen to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and his “best friends” Stephen Harper and John Baird, one would think that the Israeli government has made up its mind about attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities, and Canada has made up its mind to support it. After all, if Iran is definitely building a nuclear weapon, and if Iran would use that weapon once it got it, then what is there to talk about?

But Israel has not made up its mind about an attack. In fact, there is a rampant debate underway within official circles in Israel about the advisability of an attack, and not everyone there accepts the proposition that Iran poses an existential threat to Israel.

Last month I attended a small, closed-door conference on Iran in Israel, along with many senior Israeli officials and its leading experts on Iran. This was not the recent Herzeliya conference, which has become a forum for Israeli officials to make statements to the world press, but a meeting where people really debated the issue. I also had off-line talks with Israeli officials who are working on Iran.

While my overall sense is that the prospects for an Israeli attack have gone up over the past year, there remains an active debate over the wisdom of this move.

The debate in Israel has shifted from discussion over the date when Iran might obtain a nuclear weapon capability to a more specific problem. As expressed by Defence Minister Ehud Barak, the key issue now is when Iran’s nuclear program will have moved underground to the point that it is effectively immune from an Israeli attack. At this point, it will not matter so much when Iran achieves a bomb; what will matter is that Israel will not be able to stop it.

This date has been pegged by Barak as some point in the summer or early autumn — which places it conveniently close to the U.S. election, thereby ensuring that the issue will ramp up exactly as the U.S. electorate is most attuned to political matters. Importantly, this idea of “immunity” is not agreed with by the U.S., which seems to believe that Iran’s nuclear program will remain vulnerable to various forms of attack, if an attack is required, for some time to come.

Though there is gloom on the nuclear front, the conclusion of most Israeli analysts is that the deteriorating political, economic and social situation in Iran means that the regime is weakening. Sanctions are hurting, the Arab world is turning its back on Iran (the loss of Syria, if it happens, will be a significant blow), and the regime is increasingly unpopular at home.

Even so, there is a sense in Israel that these developments will not unfold soon enough to help on the nuclear file. Indeed, these trends may cause the Iranian regime to hang onto the nuclear program even more fiercely as a hedge against growing uncertainty.

Broadly speaking, one can discern three schools in Israel on this issue: attack; don’t attack; and what might be called the “considered view” school — which is composed of those who neither oppose nor favour an attack, but view the question on its merits at any given moment. The last school is most important and, while many of its members seem to be moving toward a favourable view of an attack, there is no unanimity.

Those who favour an attack, who are a minority, make the argument that the Iranian regime is weak and a historic opportunity exists to topple it. Thus, this is as much about regime change as it is about ending the nuclear program (the two are increasingly seen as synonymous). The Iranian regime will respond to an attack, but its real capabilities are more limited than popularly imagined and Israel can withstand them. There will be no other countries which will rally to Iran’s side, and its capabilities at asymmetric war, while painful, are not decisive for Israel. Above all, with the Syrian regime tottering, Hezbollah will not commit suicide for Iran.

The “don’t attack” school, another minority, believes that Israel should not attack Iran for any other reason than retaliation for an Iranian attack against Israel — which they regard as exceptionally unlikely. These people are concerned over the possible U.S. response to a unilateral Israeli attack, and especially the response of the exhausted American people if they believe that Israel has dragged them into yet another war in the region. They are also motivated by a belief that Israel’s quarrel with Iran is with the regime and not the people and fear that an attack would cause the Iranian people to develop a long-term anger at Israel.

Underlying this is a belief that Israel can deter a nuclear-capable Iran if necessary. Diplomacy should seek to develop a set of understandings that will allow a standoff to endure until the Iranian regime collapses due to its internal problems.

Such a situation will not be comfortable for Israel, but she can live with it. The capacity of a nuclear-capable Iran to make mischief for Israel is declining as Tehran’s position weakens generally in the region.

Finally, the “considered” school is the most diverse and influential, and is where the greatest change has happened in the past year. Many members of this school are moving toward the hard-line school’s view that Iranian retaliation for an attack, though not pleasant, will be manageable and should not deter Israel from an attack. Again, they increasingly discount the idea of a regional war and do not believe that Hezbollah will automatically do Iran’s bidding to the point of destroying itself.

More important for these people than the prospect of Iranian retaliation is the question of how the U.S. might respond to an Israeli attack. There is a fear that, if the American people believe that Israel has dragged them into yet another war — just when they are finally extricating themselves from Iraq and Afghanistan — support for Israel will drop. There is also a fear that an attack against the Obama administration’s wishes might lead to long-term “grudges” against Israel in the U.S. military and security establishment.

As one member of this school explained, there is a tendency among many Israeli policy-makers to view U.S. politics as a trinity: the administration; the Congress; and the people. So long as at least two of these three are firmly on Israel’s side, she can endure animosity from the other. Thus, if Congress and the people are on Israel’s side, the administration’s anger can be dealt with. Since Congress is likely to be firmly on Israel’s side no matter what she does, the key is thus the American people. And, so the thinking seems to go, the key to them is that the U.S. should not be pulled into a regional war which will require American “boots on the ground.” Thus, an aerial war, even an extended one, is probably acceptable to the American people.

Those in the “considered” school are increasingly coming around to the view that this outcome is possible. It is obviously a very high-stakes game and relies to a great extent on one’s analysis of likely Iranian and (perhaps more importantly) U.S. response to an Israeli attack. Moreover, some in Israel seem to hope that, if the U.S. becomes convinced that Israel will go ahead, Washington may decide to launch the attack itself to ensure that it is done “properly.”

In this chain of logic, making Washington think that an Israeli attack is imminent may be as important as the reality of it.

Interestingly, no one I spoke to in the “considered” school had much to say about the economic implications of an Israeli attack on Iran. A significant rise in the world oil price, which would almost surely result from an attack, would have serious consequences for a weakened U.S. and global economy. Even if the U.S. did not become involved in a ground war due to an Israeli attack, the American people would not welcome this outcome either and may blame Israel for it. Equally, while members of this school could explain why Israel might not bear too heavy a physical retaliation for an attack, they could not explain why Iran would not attack U.S. and Western interests in Afghanistan and elsewhere in response to an Israeli attack, thereby raising the costs to the U.S. and the West in other ways.

The inability of anyone in the “considered” school to explain how Israel would deal with these outcomes, and retain the support of the American people, suggests that these may be the Achilles heels of this school’s thinking. The importance of these issues was highlighted in President Barack Obama’s recent comment that “Any kind of additional military activity inside the Gulf is disruptive and has a big effect on us. It could have a big effect on oil prices, we’ve still got troops in Afghanistan, which borders Iran, and so our preferred solution is diplomatic.”

Some of the Israelis I spoke with indicated that the U.S. election will play an important role. If, by the summer, Netanyahu believes that an attack is necessary, and that Obama is likely to win a second term, he may decide to go before the U.S. election so as to both take advantage of the election campaign as a time when no candidate will criticize Israel, and present a second Obama administration with a fait accompli. However, this will happen only if the Israeli government believes there is a good chance the American people will remain onside — and that will require a strong sense that the fallout from an attack will be limited.

Alternatively, if there is a sense that a ground war may result, and that the U.S. will be dragged into it, Israel will likely hold off for fear of losing the long-term support of the American people.

As one senior Israeli official told me over dinner in Tel Aviv, “2012 is going to be an interesting year.”

Peter Jones is an associate professor in the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Ottawa.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/Israeli+attack+inevitable/6216005/story.html

This article is copyright © by admin: Wed May 22 16:59:45 UTC 2013

hello the press room

By Erika Solomon

BEIRUT | Sat Feb 25, 2012 6:19pm EST

(Reuters) – Syria holds a referendum on Sunday on a new constitution, dismissed by the opposition as a charade amid an intensifying crackdown on the 11-month-old revolt against President Bashar al-Assad.

Forces loyal to Assad took the bombardment of rebel-held areas in Homs into a fourth week. Activists say hundreds of people have died in the violence in the central city.

« No one is going to vote. This was a constitution made to Bashar’s tastes and meanwhile we are getting shelled and killed, » said activist Omar, speaking by Skype from the rebel-held Baba Amro district of Homs.

« More than 40 people were killed today and you want us to vote in a referendum? … No one is going to vote. »

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) said it was still unable to evacuate distressed civilians from embattled Baba Amro. After a day of talks with Syrian authorities and opposition fighters, it said there were « no concrete results ».

« We continue our negotiations, hoping that tomorrow (Sunday) we will able to enter Baba Amro to carry out our life-saving operations, » said spokesman Hisham Hassan.

Conditions were nightmarish for some of those trapped by the fighting.

« We have hundreds of wounded people crammed into houses. People die from blood loss. We just aren’t capable of treating everyone, » said activist Nader Husseini via Skype.

ELECTIONS PROMISED

Assad has vowed to hold parliamentary elections within 90 days if the referendum approves the new constitution.

The new document would drop an article that makes Assad’s Baath party the leader of state and society, allow for political pluralism and enact a presidential limit of two seven-year terms.

Activists leading the revolt against four decades of Assad family rule have called for a boycott of the referendum. In Damascus and suburbs where troops drove out insurgents last month, activists say they will try to hold protests near polling centers and burn copies of the new constitution.

State television showed video of officials stacking boxes of referendum ballots and preparing voting centers, and citizens interviewed said they planned to vote yes in the national interest.

Across the country, at least 72 people were killed in the conflict on Saturday, 24 of them in Homs, opposition groups said.

Four Western journalists, two of whom were wounded in a bombardment by government forces that killed two other foreign journalists on Wednesday, have yet to be extracted from shattered Baba Amro. It was unclear if they were specifically discussed in the ICRC talks.

The ICRC said its local partner, the Syrian Arab Red Crescent, had been able to carry out two evacuations in areas of Homs other than Baba Amro on Saturday.

RED CRESCENT « DISTRUSTED »

But Husseini said people in Baba Amro were suspicious of the Syrian Arab Red Crescent and did not want to work with a group « under the control of the regime ».

The ICRC said the Red Crescent was independent and its members were risking their lives to help those in need.

Sources close to the ICRC negotiations said talks on Saturday failed due to confusion amid heavy shelling and bad communications with fighters and state forces.

Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu questioned how the vote could take place in the midst of such violence.

« On one hand you say you are holding a referendum and on the other you are attacking with tank fire on civilian areas. You still think the people will go to a referendum the next day in the same city? » he asked at a news conference in Istanbul.

Davutoglu, whose country has turned strongly against its former friend since the Syrian revolt began in March, said Syria should accept an Arab League plan that calls on Assad to quit.

Opposition activists in Homs complained they saw no help coming, despite an international « Friends of Syria » conference in Tunis on Friday. They said the world had abandoned them to forces loyal to the president.

« They are still giving opportunities to this man who is killing us and has already killed thousands of people, » said Nadir Husseini.

Damascus condemned all statements made at the Tunis conference, which it dubbed « the enemies of Syria meeting ».

Russia and China, which did not attend the conference, vetoed a proposed U.N. Security Council resolution on Syria and there is little appetite in the international community for military intervention.

« I don’t understand what they are waiting for. Do they need to see half the people of Syria finished off first? » said a doctor speaking anonymously from the restive town of Zabadani.

« The people of Zabadani resent what happened in Tunis. We need them to arm the revolution. »

(Editing by Andrew Roche)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/25/us-syria-idUSL5E8DB0BH20120225

This article is copyright © by admin: Wed May 22 16:59:45 UTC 2013

bonjour la presse

MOSCOU (Reuters) – La Russie a appelé vendredi à un cessez-le-feu immédiat en Syrie dans la ville de Homs, adjurant tant le régime de Damas que les « groupes armés » à coopérer avec l’Onu et le Comité international de la Croix-Rouge sur le plan humanitaire.

« Nous appelons le gouvernement syrien et les groupes armés, ainsi que quiconque pourrait les influencer, à prendre sur le champ toutes les mesures nécessaires pour éviter une nouvelle dégradation de la situation humanitaire », dit un communiqué du ministère russe des Affaires étrangères.

Le ministère exprime sa « sérieuse inquiétude » vis-à-vis de la violence qui secoue Homs et d’autres villes syriennes, affirmant qu’elle devra cesser, mais maintient que les deux parties portent la responsabilité des massacres.

La Russie ajoute que l’aide humanitaire ne doit pas conduire à une ingérence militaire, à laquelle elle reste opposée, et réitère ses critiques contre le groupe des « Amis de la Syrie », réuni vendredi à Tunisie, estimant qu’il n’est pas suffisamment inclusif.

Le ministère russe des Affaires étrangères appelle en outre à une coopération avec la mission du CICR et avec Valerie Amos, secrétaire générale adjointe de l’Onu chargée des affaires humanitaires.

« La priorité devrait être de conclure rapidement un cessez-le-feu réciproque pour évacuer les blessés de Homs, et de prendre des mesures pour répondre aux besoins urgents d’une aide humanitaire pour les habitants des zones de combats », dit-il.

Jennifer Rankin et Steve Gutterman, Hélène Duvigneau pour le service français, édité par Gilles Trequesser

http://fr.news.yahoo.com/moscou-appelle-r%C3%A9gime-et-rebelles-syriens-%C3%A0-un-181746106.html

This article is copyright © by admin: Wed May 22 16:59:45 UTC 2013

bonjour la presse

VLADIVOSTOK, 26 février – RIA Novosti
En essayant d’imposer la démocratie par la force au Proche-Orient, les Etats-Unis font le jeu de la nébuleuse terroriste Al-Qaïda, a déclaré l’académicien et ex-ministre russe des Affaires étrangères Evgueni Primakov dans une interview accordée à la chaîne Rossiya.

« En Égypte, le printemps arabe a conduit à l’arrivée au pouvoir des islamistes. Est-ce que quelqu’un croit vraiment que le départ (du président syrien) Bachar el-Assad garantira l’instauration d’un régime démocratique (en Syrie)? C’est tout simplement ridicule. (…) Les tats-Unis font le jeu de d’Al-Qaïda », a déclaré le responsable.

« Le nouveau leader d’Al-Qaïda, qui a remplacé Ben Laden, a annoncé que la nébuleuse soutenait l’opposition, c’est-à-dire qu’Al-Qaïda soutient les opposants au régime syrien et condamne Assad », a fait remarquer M.Primakov.

En outre, le responsable estime qu’une éventuelle opération militaire contre l’Iran serait plus difficile pour les pays occidentaux que la guerre en Irak et qu’il est nécessaire de chercher un règlement pacifique de la situation autour du programme nucléaire de ce pays.

« Une guerre contre l’Iran représenterait un risque injustifié. (…) Les Etats-Unis ont déjà payé (pour l’opération en Irak), car ce pays est actuellement sur le point de s’effondrer, Al-Qaïda y a considérablement renforcé ses positions et il n’existe plus de contrepoids à Téhéran », a ajouté M.Primakov.

http://fr.ria.ru/world/20120226/193509470.html

This article is copyright © by admin: Wed May 22 16:59:45 UTC 2013

bonjour la presse

Des émeutes anti-américaines agitent depuis cinq jours le pays, qui ont fait pour l’instant 29 morts et plus d’une centaine de blessés, selon un décompte de l’AFP.

Au moins deux conseillers militaires américains ont été tués samedi dans une fusillade au ministère de l’Intérieur à Kaboul, tandis que les émeutes secouant l’Afghanistan restent vives cinq jours après l’incinération de Corans dans une base militaire américaine.

Cinq personnes sont mortes samedi et 66 ont été blessées, dont 11 policiers, lors de l’attaque, avortée, d’un complexe de l’ONU dans la province de Kunduz (nord), alors que quinze autres manifestants ont été blessés lors d’émeutes à Mihtarlam, la capitale du Laghman (est).

A Kaboul, deux « conseillers américains » ont été retrouvés « tués par balle », « dans leur bureau » du ministère de l’Intérieur, « par terre (…) par d’autres collègues internationaux », a déclaré Sediq Sediqqi, le porte-parole du ministère de l’Intérieur, à la chaîne d’information afghane Tolo news.

Les deux victimes appartiennent à l’Isaf, la force de l’Otan en Afghanistan, selon qui « un individu » a « retourné son arme » contre ses « membres ».

A la suite de cette attaque, le général John Allen, qui dirige l’Isaf, a décidé samedi de « rappeler tout le personnel » de la force armée de l’Otan travaillant dans les ministère afghans.

Une décision qui peut avoir des conséquence très lourde sur la sécurité intérieure du pays après 2014, quand la coalition de l’Otan aura quitté l’Afghanistan.

Les talibans ont revendiqué quant à eux l’assassinat de quatre conseillers au ministère de l’intérieur par « un héros », Abdul Rahman, qui a agi « en réaction au manque de respect des envahisseurs pour les objets sacrés de l’islam », surtout après « l’incinération de Corans dans la base de Bagram », au nord de Kaboul.

Le « moudjahid » (combattant) Abdul Rahman, « résiste encore » dans le ministère de l’Intérieur, d’après le communiqué des rebelles, qui ont appelé les musulmans afghans à « attaquer » et « tuer » les militaires américains, qualifiés d’ »envahisseurs » .

« Nous enquêtons pour savoir qui est responsable de leur mort », a de son côté commenté Sediq Sediqqi.

« Il est encore bien trop tôt pour établir un lien » entre la mort des deux officiers de l’Otan et l’incinération des Corans », a estimé le brigadier-général Carsten Jacobson, porte-parole de l’Isaf, interrogé par la BBC.

Dans la nuit de lundi à mardi, des exemplaires du Coran, confisqués à des détenus de la prison de la base américaine de Bagram, ont été incinérés parce que, selon des responsables à Washington, ils servaient à faire passer des messages entre prisonniers.

Le responsable étant « un responsable américain », des émeutes anti-américaines agitent depuis cinq jours le pays, qui ont fait pour l’instant 29 morts et plus d’une centaine de blessés, selon un décompte de l’AFP.

Samedi à Kunduz, des milliers de manifestants ont tenté de marcher sur un complexe de l’ONU. Les policiers, qui au départ tiraient en l’air pour les effrayer, a dû viser les manifestants afin de les arrêter, a constaté un correspondant de l’AFP.

La mission de l’ONU en Afghanistan (UNAMA), dans un communiqué, a « déploré » l’attaque contre son complexe, tout en « remerciant » les forces de sécurité afghanes, « et particulièrement la police », « pour sa réponse rapide ».

L’UNAMA regrette « les victimes » policières tout comme les pertes infligées aux manifestants, même si celles-ci ont été le fruit de « la légitime défense ». « Tout le personnel de l’ONU est sain et sauf », selon la même source.

A Mihtarlam, quinze manifestants ont été blessés par balle et emmenés à l’hôpital public de la ville, ont indiqué des cadres de cet établissement à l’AFP. La manifestation s’est depuis achevée, a indiqué une source policière.

Des rassemblements, relativement pacifiques, de plusieurs centaines de personnes, se sont aussi tenus dans les provinces de Logar, Kunar et Nangarhar (est), Sari Pul (nord), Parwan (centre) Kapisa et Nouristan (nord-est), a déclaré Sediq Sediqqi, le porte-parole du ministère de l’Intérieur.

Les « excuses les plus sincères » du président américain Barack Obama au peuple afghan et les appels à la « retenue » lancés par des personnalités religieuses ayant enquêté sur les Corans brûlés et l’Isaf, la force de l’Otan en Afghanistan, n’ont visiblement pas été entendus.

Le sentiment antiaméricain n’a jamais été aussi fort dans la population en 10 ans de conflit, au diapason des bavures de l’Otan qui tuent relativement fréquemment des civils et de diverses affaires récentes de profanations ou autres actes jugés blasphématoires à l’égard de l’islam.

http://www.lepoint.fr/monde/afghanistan-deux-conseillers-americains-tues-les-emeutes-continuent-25-02-2012-1435150_24.php

This article is copyright © by admin: Wed May 22 16:59:45 UTC 2013

hello the press room

By Khaled Yacoub Oweis and Alistair Lyon

AMMAN/BEIRUT | Thu Feb 23, 2012 5:40pm EST

AMMAN/BEIRUT (Reuters) – Western and Arab nations will demand that Syrian forces implement an immediate ceasefire to allow relief supplies to reach desperate civilians in bombarded cities such as Homs when they meet in Tunis on Friday.

Piling pressure on President Bashar al-Assad, U.N. investigators accused his security apparatus of crimes against humanity as world outrage mounted over violence that has cost thousands of lives during an almost year-long popular revolt against his 11-year rule.

The Syrian uprising will only intensify, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said at a London conference. « There will be increasingly capable opposition forces. They will from somewhere, somehow find the means to defend themselves as well as begin offensive measures, » she told reporters.

The « Friends of Syria » meeting, that Clinton will attend, will call on Syrian forces to stop firing to give international aid groups access to areas worst hit by the violence which are running out of medicine and food, according to a draft declaration obtained by Reuters.

The draft also « recognized the Syrian National Council as a legitimate representative of Syrians seeking peaceful democratic change, » a phrase which appeared to fall short of full endorsement of the most prominent group opposed to Assad.

About 70 nations, including the United States, Turkey, and European and Arab countries that want Assad to step down, will take part in the talks, but Russia and China, which have jointly vetoed two U.N. Security Council resolutions on Syria, say they will stay away.

U.S. officials avoided answering questions on whether the group may discuss the possibility of arming the opposition, something that some nations favor and that the United States, in a change in emphasis, on Tuesday suggested could become an alternative.

The Syrian National Council is allied with the Free Syrian Army (FSA), made up mostly of army deserters fighting security forces that have sought to crush protests against Assad, whose minority Alawite sect dominates Sunni-majority Syria.

Syrian security forces lined up and shot dead 13 men and boys from one extended family, which has the same name as the FSA’s commander Riad al-Asaad, in the village of Kfartoun in Hama province on Thursday, activists in Hama city said.

It was not immediately clear if the victims were related to Asaad, who is based in Turkey and comes from the northwestern province of Idlib.

Activists said three people were also killed in shelling of the nearby village of Soubin. The bodies of five Syrian workers who disappeared two days ago after crossing from Lebanon on their way to Hama were found on Thursday, they said. Two people were killed by troops at a checkpoint inside the city.

CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY

Such accounts are hard to verify due to Syrian government restrictions on independent journalists.

U.N. investigators said Syrian forces had shot and killed unarmed women and children, shelled residential areas and tortured wounded protesters in hospital under orders issued at the « highest levels » of the army and government.

In their report to the U.N. Human Rights Council, they called for perpetrators of such crimes against humanity to face prosecution and said they had drawn up a confidential list of names of commanders and officials alleged to be responsible.

The commission found that Free Syrian Army rebels had also committed abuses « although not comparable in scale. »

Syrian authorities have not commented, but they rejected the commission’s previous report in November as « totally false. »

Rockets, shells and mortar rounds rained on the Baba Amro district, where armed insurgents are holed up with terrified civilians, for the 20th day in a row, activists said. The Sunni Muslim quarters of Inshaat and Khalidiya also came under fire.

Homs-based activist Abu Imad said tanks had entered the Jobar area in the south of Baba Amro.

« Explosions are shaking the whole of Homs. God have mercy, » Abdallah al-Hadi said from the city, where more than 80 people, including two Western journalists and Syrian opposition citizen journalist Rami al-Sayed, were reported killed on Wednesday.

Western diplomats said it had not yet been possible to extract the bodies of Marie Colvin, an American working for Britain’s Sunday Times, and French photographer Remi Ochlik.

Two journalists wounded in the same attack – British photographer Paul Conroy and French reporter Edith Bouvier, along with French photographer William Daniels, who was unhurt – were also awaiting evacuation from the Baba Amro neighborhood.

Bouvier, in a YouTube clip posted by activists, said she urgently needed an operation on a broken leg and appealed for a ceasefire and medical transport to neighboring Lebanon.

The Syrian Information Ministry rejected accusations that Syria was responsible for the deaths of journalists, who « infiltrated into the country on their own responsibility. »

HUMANITARIAN ACCESS

The army is blocking medical supplies to parts of Homs and electricity is cut off 15 hours a day, activists say.

The International Committee of the Red Cross has been trying to arrange daily two-hour ceasefires, so far without success.

To further isolate Assad’s government, the European Union will impose more sanctions on Syria next week.

The bloody siege of parts of Homs has aroused widespread international indignation, but the world has so far proved powerless to alleviate the predicament of civilians there.

Footage shot by activists in Homs shows blasted buildings, empty streets and doctors treating casualties in makeshift clinics in Baba Amro after nearly three weeks of bombardment.

Several hundred people have been killed in Homs by troops using artillery, tanks, rockets and sniper fire.

Residents fear Assad will subject the city to the same fate his late father Hafez inflicted on Hama, where many thousands were killed in the crushing of an armed Islamist revolt in 1982.

The state news agency SANA said three members of the security forces were killed and seven wounded by a bomb planted by « armed terrorists » near the city of Idlib. It also reported the funerals of 16 security force members killed by rebels.

Assad has called a referendum on a new constitution on Sunday, to be followed by a multi-party parliamentary election, which he says is a response to calls for reform. The plan is supported by his allies Russia and China but Western powers have dismissed it and the Syrian opposition has called for a boycott.

(Additional reporting by Dominic Evans, Erika Solomon and Mariam Karouny in Beirut, Stephanie Nebehay in Geneva, Arshad Mohammed in London and Don Durfee and Ben Blanchard in Beijing; Writing by Alistair Lyon; Editing by Sophie Hares)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/23/us-syria-idUSL5E8DB0BH20120223

This article is copyright © by admin: Wed May 22 16:59:45 UTC 2013

hello the press room

I think it was Alfred Kerr, the German critic nicknamed the “culture pope” in his day, who once said that he had been writing the same dozen pieces all his life. I suspect I have, too. Theatre critics keep returning to certain themes because playwrights keep returning to them; social critics do because life does. I’ve been writing for years that exporting democracy is importing trouble.

Can’t improve the Ten Commandments, but if Moses were to go back for another 10, the next set might include “Thou Shalt Build No Nation But Thine Own.” Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush was wise when he declared “no nation-building” during his first campaign for the White House. Had president Bush heeded candidate Bush’s sage advice, he would have disengaged his forces from Iraq after the capture of Saddam Hussein as rapidly as possible. Had he done so, chances are a) most coalition soldiers who lost their lives in the Second Gulf War would still be alive, and b) Mr. Bush’s approval rating would have stayed between 80% to 90% throughout his presidency.

Just think about it: Total coalition military fatalities were 580 at the end of 2003 when Saddam was captured. Fatalities in 2011, when Barack Obama pulled out the last American soldier from Iraq, stood at 4,802. It’s fair to say that 4,300 or about 88% died for no discernible military gain.

What about political gain? Had the coalition pulled out at the end of 2003 — some ask — wouldn’t Saddam’s former fiefdom be in a state of civil war? Yes, it probably would be — just as it is now. No objective observer can pretend that bomb-torn Iraq is a functioning democracy in 2012 — it’s more like a pack of sled-dogs at feeding time, jostling for dominance. Sure, the artificial edifice called “Iraq” might have collapsed when the United States pulled out the supporting pillar of Saddam’s regime in 2003, but if president Bush had only stepped aside, it wouldn’t have collapsed on his head.

What prevented young Mr. Bush from stepping aside? Inflated expectations of democracy, I suppose.

It’s time to realize something about democracy. Contrary to how most people use the word, it’s not a synonym for peace, freedom, equality, prosperity, secularism, security, or justice. The D-word simply means a method of governmental succession. It denotes a system in which governments succeed each other by being elected, usually for a fixed term, by a majority of qualified voters. That’s all.

Rule by majority mandate says nothing, in itself, about what kind of rule it is. That depends on a society’s other traditions and institutions, its power division, conflict resolution, public discourse — such as, say, a free press or a writ of habeas corpus. In their absence, majority rule may amount to outright tyranny, as it did in some ancient Greek city states. The infamous tyrant of Syracuse was an elected official.

(No, sir, this isn’t a dig at Jean Chrétien. I can see why you’d ask, although we never called our three-term prime minister tyrant. We called him the Boss.)

To continue, as a method of succession, a mandate by a majority of qualified voters is dandy. It beats royal descent, divine revelation, popular or palace revolution, not to mention that South American favourite, a military coup. A majority mandate doesn’t, however, remotely assure peace, order, liberty, equality, prosperity, or justice.

We think it does. We look at democracy as a cure for all social maladies, including poverty, corruption, inequality, tribal hostilities, pollution, perhaps even malaria or AIDS. Noting that “democracies” rarely go to war against each other, we promote it as a component of international peace. We feel justified in trying to export democracy, to impose it on undemocratic societies, sometimes at the point of bayonets.

But exporting democracy at the point of bayonets or Cruise missiles isn’t such a bright idea. Desirable as democracy is, all that can be imposed on a society from the outside is its letter — and democracy’s letter may not spell any of the words we take to be democracy’s spirit. In South America it may spell H-u-g-o C-h-a-v-e-z if we’re lucky and worse if we’re not. In Iran it spells 21st century theocracy, which is the Middle Ages gone nuclear. In Pakistan “democracy” would probably spell the same thing; in Saudi Arabia it would for sure. When free to choose, majorities will go for what makes cultural sense to them at a given juncture of their histories. They seem to be doing so right now in Egypt and Libya, in wake of the “Arab Spring.” Note that they’re not choosing democrats. They’re choosing Islamists.

“You must remember this, a kiss is just a kiss, but it’s democracy that gave us Hitler in 1933 and Hamas in 2006,” I wrote a few years back. Like some wines, democracy tastes great but travels poorly. Wine growers should cultivate, harvest and enjoy their product locally, stacked in caskets marked “Not for Export” and “Do Try It At Home.” The export-item is the vintner’s know-how, not his dew.

National Post

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/02/22/george-jonas-exporting-democracy-importing-trouble/

This article is copyright © by admin: Wed May 22 16:59:45 UTC 2013