Syria watch...

[Little John]

From the Guardian: "US open to Russian Proposal . . ."

"The White House gave a cautious welcome on Monday to a Russian proposal for Syria to hand over its chemical weapons, opening up the first real chance of a political settlement to the crisis since hundreds of civilians died in an attack on a Damascus suburb last month.

US deputy national security adviser Tony Blinken said "it would be terrific" if Syria followed through on a reported offer by its foreign minister to place chemical stockpiles under the control of international observers. But he nevertheless expressed scepticism whether it would do so. "Unfortunately, the track record to date does not inspire a lot of confidence," Blinken said.

The White House said it would now work with the Russians to explore the deal proposed earlier on Monday by foreign minister Sergey Lavrov, after an apparent off-the-cuff remark by US secretary of state John Kerry. The administration stressed that these discussions would take place "in parallel" with continued efforts in Washington to persuade US lawmakers to authorise the use of military force against Syria.

The diplomatic scramble began in London when Kerry suggested that the only way for Syria to avoid the threat of a US attack would be for it to hand over all its chemical weapons within a week.

At first, the significance of the remarks were downplayed by the Department of State, which said he had been speaking "rhetorically", but Kerry's language was immediately seized on by Lavrov, who raised the prospect of international observers supervising such a handover.

"If the establishment of international control over chemical weapons in that country would allow avoiding strikes, we will immediately start working with Damascus," Lavrov said.

"We are calling on the Syrian leadership to not only agree on placing chemical weapons storage sites under international control, but also on its subsequent destruction and fully joining the treaty on prohibition of chemical weapons," Lavrov said after a meeting with his Syrian counterpart, Walid al-Moallem.

Whether intentional or not, Kerry's comments opened up a chance to defuse the crisis at a moment when Barack Obama was already struggling to persuade Congress of the need for US intervention. Kerry later spoke to Lavrov by phone and Washington scrambled to place its own spin on the unexpected breakthrough."
________________________________________________________

To what extent this was an accidental offer by Kerry is open to interpretation -
if the simplistic belief that the US is hell bent on war was correct,
it could certainly be argued that Kerry must be pretty exhausted after a fortnight of high intensity debate -
and a very incautious remark is not surprising -
OTOH , while it yields the credit for promoting the idea to Putin, if it comes to anything it would be a rather effective way
past the the horns of the credibility-loss dilemma that have Washington trapped -
it is a restraint from punitive action but at the price of Assad surrendering his CW arsenal.

If it comes to anything then the question turns to the deal's practical effect: with around 1,000 tonnes of precursor chemicals
being the long-held western estimate (that has not been denied by Assad) and with these being stored in around 50 depots across Syria,
the removal and stashing before US personnel arrive of just 1% (10 tonnes) would provide material
for repeated attacks on the scale of August 21st, to be blamed, of course, on the 'terrorists'.
And who then would lift a finger ?

Moreover, such a deal would effectively preclude further US intervention, which would be a major coup for Moscow, Iran and Damascus,
and a blow for Riyadh and Tel Aviv.
It would also quite likely mean selling out the Syrian people to continued tyranny under Riyadh or Tel Aviv's preference.
To my mind this would be a classic example of the US callous malfeasance in responding to those aspiring to a democratic society.

One of the things that this potential deal seems rather unlikely to generate is any acknowledgement from the passivist tendency
that have been stridently opposing a punitive strike -
that without the credible present threat of such a strike, backed by its implacable preparation,
there would now be no prospect of Syria renouncing its official chemical weapons stockpiles.

Regards,

Lewis

I'm no pacifist mister. So enough with the bullshit aunt sally blanket characterisation of the entire anti US military aggression position as being pacifist. But, then, that kind of disingenuous debating tactic has been your hallmark on this thread.

[woodburner]

From the Guardian: "US open to Russian Proposal . . ."

"The White House gave a cautious welcome on Monday to a Russian proposal for Syria to hand over its chemical weapons, opening up the first real chance of a political settlement to the crisis since hundreds of civilians died in an attack on a Damascus suburb last month.

US deputy national security adviser Tony Blinken said "it would be terrific" if Syria followed through on a reported offer by its foreign minister to place chemical stockpiles under the control of international observers. But he nevertheless expressed scepticism whether it would do so. "Unfortunately, the track record to date does not inspire a lot of confidence," Blinken said.

The White House said it would now work with the Russians to explore the deal proposed earlier on Monday by foreign minister Sergey Lavrov, after an apparent off-the-cuff remark by US secretary of state John Kerry. The administration stressed that these discussions would take place "in parallel" with continued efforts in Washington to persuade US lawmakers to authorise the use of military force against Syria.

The diplomatic scramble began in London when Kerry suggested that the only way for Syria to avoid the threat of a US attack would be for it to hand over all its chemical weapons within a week.

At first, the significance of the remarks were downplayed by the Department of State, which said he had been speaking "rhetorically", but Kerry's language was immediately seized on by Lavrov, who raised the prospect of international observers supervising such a handover.

"If the establishment of international control over chemical weapons in that country would allow avoiding strikes, we will immediately start working with Damascus," Lavrov said.

"We are calling on the Syrian leadership to not only agree on placing chemical weapons storage sites under international control, but also on its subsequent destruction and fully joining the treaty on prohibition of chemical weapons," Lavrov said after a meeting with his Syrian counterpart, Walid al-Moallem.

Whether intentional or not, Kerry's comments opened up a chance to defuse the crisis at a moment when Barack Obama was already struggling to persuade Congress of the need for US intervention. Kerry later spoke to Lavrov by phone and Washington scrambled to place its own spin on the unexpected breakthrough."
________________________________________________________

To what extent this was an accidental offer by Kerry is open to interpretation -
if the simplistic belief that the US is hell bent on war was correct,
it could certainly be argued that Kerry must be pretty exhausted after a fortnight of high intensity debate -
and a very incautious remark is not surprising -
OTOH , while it yields the credit for promoting the idea to Putin, if it comes to anything it would be a rather effective way
past the the horns of the credibility-loss dilemma that have Washington trapped -
it is a restraint from punitive action but at the price of Assad surrendering his CW arsenal.

If it comes to anything then the question turns to the deal's practical effect: with around 1,000 tonnes of precursor chemicals
being the long-held western estimate (that has not been denied by Assad) and with these being stored in around 50 depots across Syria,
the removal and stashing before US personnel arrive of just 1% (10 tonnes) would provide material
for repeated attacks on the scale of August 21st, to be blamed, of course, on the 'terrorists'.
And who then would lift a finger ?

Moreover, such a deal would effectively preclude further US intervention, which would be a major coup for Moscow, Iran and Damascus,
and a blow for Riyadh and Tel Aviv.
It would also quite likely mean selling out the Syrian people to continued tyranny under Riyadh or Tel Aviv's preference.
To my mind this would be a classic example of the US callous malfeasance in responding to those aspiring to a democratic society.

One of the things that this potential deal seems rather unlikely to generate is any acknowledgement from the passivist tendency
that have been stridently opposing a punitive strike -
that without the credible present threat of such a strike, backed by its implacable preparation,
there would now be no prospect of Syria renouncing its official chemical weapons stockpiles.

Regards,

Lewis

I'm no pacifist mister. So enough with the bullshit aunt sally blanket characterisation of the entire anti US military aggression position as being pacifist. But, then, that kind of disingenuous debating tactic has been your hallmark on this thread.

You manage to read insincerity into most peoples posts. Why do you find it so difficult to either be polite or provide a point to support your arguement? No doubt you will have some vitriolic reply.

[Tarrel]

If this worked out and the weapons were indeed put under international control, I wonder where this would leave the US geopolitically?

- The heroes for having the strength of purpose and moral integrity to propose a risky approach in the face of international naysaying, or..

- totally upstaged by the Russians, who are introducing a more measured, statesman-like approach to the job of world-policing?

[woodburner]

I think the US administration thought that sabre rattling would have public supprt. It seems there is very little, except from those in the admin that would stand to gain commercially from another war. If military action was taken, it would be the whole government political machine that would break, not just the Obama administration.

[JavaScriptDonkey]

If I were Syria I would whole-hearted agree to this plan just so long as Israel ratified the chemicals weapon ban and also put its nuclear weapons under international protection.

What could be fairer than that?

[Little John]

If I were Syria I would whole-hearted agree to this plan just so long as Israel ratified the chemicals weapon ban and also put its nuclear weapons under international protection.

What could be fairer than that?

F--k me, that's funny....

[clv101]

I think the US administration thought that sabre rattling would have public supprt.

Yeah, I think this offers a somewhat face saving exit as it's looking more and more likely both houses will/would vote against Obama. What a mess they got themselves in.

[biffvernon]

Almost makes you wonder whether that chancy vote in Parliament might not have been a significant tipping point in the tides of men.

Fingers crossed.

[Little John]

Almost makes you wonder whether that chancy vote in Parliament might not have been a significant tipping point in the tides of men.

Fingers crossed.

Yeah, i think so.

I also think this man's speech was quite possibly pivotal in that vote. Especially so given the suspiciously blanket lack of coverage by the media of it. Whatever else one may think of this man, it was sufficiently eloquent of tone and sufficiently powerful of argument that you would have thought it would have received at least a cursory mention.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgxzpQrqSkg

[biffvernon]

Indeed.

[JavaScriptDonkey]

We 3 agree.

[biffvernon]

Far be it from me to promote Fox News but Judge Jeanine's little rant is classic. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sorpTOyJXf8

[Little John]

We 3 agree.

Bloody hell, something's not right!

[biffvernon]

The judges at Nuremberg were succinct: "Individual citizens have the duty to violate domestic laws to prevent crimes against peace and humanity."

John Pilger, as eloquent and truthful as ever, delivers a fitting essay for the 9th of September. http://johnpilger.com/articles/from-hir ... -not-speak

[Little John]

The judges at Nuremberg were succinct: "Individual citizens have the duty to violate domestic laws to prevent crimes against peace and humanity."

John Pilger, as eloquent and truthful as ever, delivers a fitting essay for the 9th of September. http://johnpilger.com/articles/from-hir ... -not-speak

I pasting this up B. It's important. You reading this Billhook?

On my wall is the front page of Daily Express of September 5, 1945 and the words: "I write this as a warning to the world." So began Wilfred Burchett's report from Hiroshima. It was the scoop of the century. For his lone, perilous journey that defied the US occupation authorities, Burchett was pilloried, not least by his embedded colleagues. He warned that an act of premeditated mass murder on an epic scale had launched a new era of terror.


Almost every day now, he is vindicated. The intrinsic criminality of the atomic bombing is borne out in the US National Archives and by the subsequent decades of militarism camouflaged as democracy. The Syria psychodrama exemplifies this. Yet again, we are held hostage to the prospect of a terrorism whose nature and history even the most liberal critics still deny. The great unmentionable is that humanity's most dangerous enemy resides across the Atlantic.


John Kerry's farce and Barack Obama's pirouettes are temporary. Russia's peace deal over chemical weapons will, in time, be treated with the contempt that all militarists reserve for diplomacy. With Al-Qaida now among its allies, and US-armed coupmasters secure in Cairo, the US intends to crush the last independent states in the Middle East: Syria first, then Iran. "This operation [in Syria]," said the former French foreign minister Roland Dumas in June, "goes way back. It was prepared, pre-conceived and planned."


When the public is "psychologically scarred", as the Channel 4 reporter Jonathan Rugman described the British people's overwhelming hostility to an attack on Syria, reinforcing the unmentionable is made urgent. Whether or not Bashar al-Assad or the "rebels" used gas in the suburbs of Damascus, it is the US not Syria that is the world's most prolific user of these terrible weapons. In 1970, the Senate reported, "The US has dumped on Vietnam a quantity of toxic chemical (dioxin) amounting to six pounds per head of population". This was Operation Hades, later renamed the friendlier Operation Rand Hand: the source of what Vietnamese doctors call a "cycle of foetal catastrophe". I have seen generations of young children with their familiar, monstrous deformities. John Kerry, with his own blood-soaked war record, will remember them. I have seen them in Iraq, too, where the US used depleted uranium and white phosphorous, as did the Israelis in Gaza, raining it down on UN schools and hospitals. No Obama "red line" for them. No showdown psychodrama for them.


The repetitive debate about whether "we" should "take action" against selected dictators (i.e. cheer on the US and its acolytes in yet another aerial killing spree) is part of our brainwashing. Richard Falk, emeritus professor of international law and UN Special Rapporteur on Palestine, describes it as "a self-righteous, one-way, legal/moral screen [with] positive images of Western values and innocence portrayed as threatened, validating a campaign of unrestricted political violence". This "is so widely accepted as to be virtually unchallengeable".


It is the biggest lie: the product of "liberal realists" in Anglo-American politics, scholarship and the media who ordain themselves as the world's crisis managers, rather than the cause of a crisis. Stripping humanity from the study of nations and congealing it with jargon that serves western power designs, they mark "failed", "rogue" or "evil" states for "humanitarian intervention".


An attack on Syria or Iran or any other US "demon" would draw on a fashionable variant, "Responsibility to Protect", or R2P, whose lectern-trotting zealot is the former Australian foreign minister Gareth Evans, co-chair of a "Global Centre", based in New York. Evans and his generously funded lobbyists play a vital propaganda role in urging the "international community" to attack countries where "the Security Council rejects a proposal or fails to deal with it in a reasonable time".


Evans has form. He appears in my 1994 film Death of a Nation, which revealed the scale of genocide in East Timor. Canberra's smiling man is raising his champagne glass in a toast to his Indonesian equivalent as they fly over East Timor in an Australian aircraft, having just signed a treaty that pirated the oil and gas of the stricken country below where Indonesia's tyrant, Suharto, killed or starved a third of the population.


Under the "weak" Obama, militarism has risen perhaps as never before. With not a single tank on the White House lawn, a military coup has taken place in Washington. In 2008, while his liberal devotees dried their eyes, Obama accepted the entire Pentagon of his predecessor, George Bush: its wars and war crimes. As the constitution is replaced by an emerging police state, those who destroyed Iraq with shock and awe, and piled up the rubble in Afghanistan and reduced Libya to a Hobbesian nightmare, are ascendant across the US administration. Behind their beribboned façade, more former US soldiers are killing themselves than are dying on battlefields. Last year, 6,500 veterans took their own lives. Put out more flags.


The historian Norman Pollack calls this "liberal fascism". "For goose-steppers," he wrote, "substitute the seemingly more innocuous militarisation of the total culture. And for the bombastic leader, we have the reformer manqué, blithely at work, planning and executing assassination, smiling all the while." Every Tuesday, the "humanitarian" Obama personally oversees a worldwide terror network of drones that "bugsplat" people, their rescuers and mourners. In the west's comfort zones, the first black leader of the land of slavery still feels good, as if his very existence represents a social advance, regardless of his trail of blood. This obeisance to a symbol has all but destroyed the US anti-war movement: Obama's singular achievement.


In Britain, the distractions of the fakery of image and identity politics have not quite succeeded. A stirring has begun, though people of conscience should hurry. The judges at Nuremberg were succinct: "Individual citizens have the duty to violate domestic laws to prevent crimes against peace and humanity." The ordinary people of Syria, and countless others, and our own self respect, deserve nothing less now.