Category Archives: EU-Syria

Syria’s many new friends are a self-interested bunch

Posted on July 11, 2012 | Comments Off on Syria’s many new friends are a self-interested bunch

Charles Glass-
Jul 11, 2012-

Last week France hosted the third conference of the Group of Friends of the Syrian People, a collection of 107 countries and organisations modelled on the Friends of Libya who cheer-led Nato’s air war in that country.

In France, representatives of the US, Turkey, Britain, France, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Slovenia, South Korea, the UN and the rest demonstrated their friendship in a communiqué as vague as it was biased.

The group urged more economic sanctions, humanitarian assistance to victims of violence and “stronger United Nations Security Council action.” It promised punishment for government war criminals, while neglecting to suggest that rebels who violate the Geneva Conventions should receive so much as a parking fine.

The Syrians are now surrounded by more new-found friends than a lottery winner. Not since the old Soviet Union signed all those “treaties of friendship” with everyone from Finland to Afghanistan has one country had so many new pals.

How did Syria become so popular that almost half of the members of the UN are scrambling to save it? What other country can claim more than 100 sovereign friends? What inspired this rush of affection for Syria?

Where have these friends been hiding for the past 50 years? What were they doing in 1967 when Israel seized the Syrian Golan? What support did they send to more than 100,000 Syrian citizens when Israel demolished their villages and expelled them from their homes? What was their reaction to Israel’s illegal annexation of the Golan in 1981? Have they taken a stand against the 30 settlements that Israel planted on property stolen from Syrians? Are they calling for sanctions against Israel until it withdraws from Syrian territory, dismantles its settlements and permits Syria’s Golan citizens to return home?

You know the answers. So do the Syrians.

Would it be churlish to suggest that Syria’s friends want something from Syria for themselves? George Bush was eyeing Syria when he left the White House, and, as in so much else, the Obama administration is taking the policy further.

On March 5, 2007 Seymour Hersh, whose American intelligence sources are second to none, wrote in TheNew Yorker:

“To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the administration has co-operated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hizbollah, the Shiite organisation that is backed by Iran. The US has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.”

Syria is a house on fire, and the US and Russia have turned up with flame-throwers.

Thus, arms have flowed in abundance to both sides – at least until this week when Russia stopped shipments.

A conflict which screams out for a diplomatic settlement perpetuates itself with outside help, for outside interests.

If Syria’s friends have set out to destroy the country, they are doing it well. Neighbour has turned against neighbour. People who thought of themselves two years ago as Syrians have now become Sunnis, Druze, Christians or Alawites.

The CIA is arming and guiding gunmen near the Turkish border, as it once did anti-Sandinista Contras along the Honduran-Nicaraguan frontier.

To avoid Congressional scrutiny as it did in Nicaragua, the US has turned again to Saudi Arabia. The British are running anti-Syrian government operations from Lebanon. France, my sources say, is playing a similar role from both Turkey and Lebanon. Russia and Turkey vie for influence in a country whose citizens hate them both.

Page 2 of 2

The killing is not only escalating but, mirroring fratricidal struggles from Spain in 1936 to Yugoslavia in 1992, is growing more personal and vicious. No hands are clean. No one, apart from the undertaker, is winning. Yet it goes on and on with each side certain of the justice of its cause.

There are many versions of this conflict. They are all true, just as they are all false. No one accepts the government’s insistence that its opponents are all foreign mercenaries. Too many Syrians in Homs and Idlib have died for the internal dimension of the conflict to be denied.

But opposition claims to have honoured the Annan plan’s ceasefire do not stand scrutiny. They have allegedly attacked security offices, checkpoints, buses and barracks, to cast blame on the government for responding.

They claim further that theirs is an entirely home-grown uprising, even as they receive weapons, training, advice, transport and funding from foreign governments and intelligence agencies.

The role of outside actors is as clear as it was when Britain used the so-called “Arab awakening” to expel the Ottomans from Syria in 1918. Just as those rebels discovered two years later, freedom and independence may not suit their powerful backers.

If the friends’ sanctions, arming of the opposition and dispatch of spies and supplies fail to settle the outcome in Syria, the friends will rely on the armed oppositions’ narrative to demand that the US launch an invasion.

“Whenever we engage in a war or move in on some country,” Edmund Wilson wrote in Patriotic Gore, referring to America’s seizure of many lands from Mexico to the Philippines, “it is always to liberate somebody.”

 

Charles Glass is the author of several books on the Middle East, including Tribes with Flags and The Northern Front: An Iraq War Diary. He is also a publisher under the London imprint Charles Glass Books

One-page article

Last week France hosted the third conference of the Group of Friends of the Syrian People, a collection of 107 countries and organisations modelled on the Friends of Libya who cheer-led Nato’s air war in that country.

In France, representatives of the US, Turkey, Britain, France, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Slovenia, South Korea, the UN and the rest demonstrated their friendship in a communiqué as vague as it was biased.

The group urged more economic sanctions, humanitarian assistance to victims of violence and “stronger United Nations Security Council action.” It promised punishment for government war criminals, while neglecting to suggest that rebels who violate the Geneva Conventions should receive so much as a parking fine.

The Syrians are now surrounded by more new-found friends than a lottery winner. Not since the old Soviet Union signed all those “treaties of friendship” with everyone from Finland to Afghanistan has one country had so many new pals.

How did Syria become so popular that almost half of the members of the UN are scrambling to save it? What other country can claim more than 100 sovereign friends? What inspired this rush of affection for Syria?

Where have these friends been hiding for the past 50 years? What were they doing in 1967 when Israel seized the Syrian Golan? What support did they send to more than 100,000 Syrian citizens when Israel demolished their villages and expelled them from their homes? What was their reaction to Israel’s illegal annexation of the Golan in 1981? Have they taken a stand against the 30 settlements that Israel planted on property stolen from Syrians? Are they calling for sanctions against Israel until it withdraws from Syrian territory, dismantles its settlements and permits Syria’s Golan citizens to return home?

You know the answers. So do the Syrians.

Would it be churlish to suggest that Syria’s friends want something from Syria for themselves? George Bush was eyeing Syria when he left the White House, and, as in so much else, the Obama administration is taking the policy further.

On March 5, 2007 Seymour Hersh, whose American intelligence sources are second to none, wrote in TheNew Yorker:

“To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the administration has co-operated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hizbollah, the Shiite organisation that is backed by Iran. The US has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.”

Syria is a house on fire, and the US and Russia have turned up with flame-throwers.

Thus, arms have flowed in abundance to both sides – at least until this week when Russia stopped shipments.

A conflict which screams out for a diplomatic settlement perpetuates itself with outside help, for outside interests.

If Syria’s friends have set out to destroy the country, they are doing it well. Neighbour has turned against neighbour. People who thought of themselves two years ago as Syrians have now become Sunnis, Druze, Christians or Alawites.

The CIA is arming and guiding gunmen near the Turkish border, as it once did anti-Sandinista Contras along the Honduran-Nicaraguan frontier.

To avoid Congressional scrutiny as it did in Nicaragua, the US has turned again to Saudi Arabia. The British are running anti-Syrian government operations from Lebanon. France, my sources say, is playing a similar role from both Turkey and Lebanon. Russia and Turkey vie for influence in a country whose citizens hate them both.

The killing is not only escalating but, mirroring fratricidal struggles from Spain in 1936 to Yugoslavia in 1992, is growing more personal and vicious. No hands are clean. No one, apart from the undertaker, is winning. Yet it goes on and on with each side certain of the justice of its cause.

There are many versions of this conflict. They are all true, just as they are all false. No one accepts the government’s insistence that its opponents are all foreign mercenaries. Too many Syrians in Homs and Idlib have died for the internal dimension of the conflict to be denied.

But opposition claims to have honoured the Annan plan’s ceasefire do not stand scrutiny. They have allegedly attacked security offices, checkpoints, buses and barracks, to cast blame on the government for responding.

They claim further that theirs is an entirely home-grown uprising, even as they receive weapons, training, advice, transport and funding from foreign governments and intelligence agencies.

The role of outside actors is as clear as it was when Britain used the so-called “Arab awakening” to expel the Ottomans from Syria in 1918. Just as those rebels discovered two years later, freedom and independence may not suit their powerful backers.

If the friends’ sanctions, arming of the opposition and dispatch of spies and supplies fail to settle the outcome in Syria, the friends will rely on the armed oppositions’ narrative to demand that the US launch an invasion.

“Whenever we engage in a war or move in on some country,” Edmund Wilson wrote in Patriotic Gore, referring to America’s seizure of many lands from Mexico to the Philippines, “it is always to liberate somebody.”

http://www.thenational.ae/thenationalconversation/comment/syrias-many-new-friends-are-a-self-interested-bunch#full

Charles Glass is the author of several books on the Middle East, including Tribes with Flags and The Northern Front: An Iraq War Diary. He is also a publisher under the London imprint Charles Glass Books

Comments Off on Syria’s many new friends are a self-interested bunch

Posted in EU-Syria, Middle East Geopolitics, Turkey-Syria, US Middle East Politics, US-Syria

New Phase in Syria Crisis: Dealmaking Toward An Exit

Posted on March 22, 2012 | Comments Off on New Phase in Syria Crisis: Dealmaking Toward An Exit

By: Sharmine Narwani [1] –

Published Wednesday, March 21, 2012 –

In recent weeks, there has been a notable shuffle in the positions of key external players in the Syrian crisis. Momentum has quite suddenly shifted from an all-out onslaught against the Assad government to a quiet investigation of exit strategies.

The clashes between government forces and opposition militias in Baba Amr were a clear tipping point for these players – much hinged on the outcome of that battle. Today, the retreat of armed groups from the Homs neighborhood means one thing: the strategy of militarizing the conflict from within is no longer a plausible option on which to hang this geopolitical battle. Especially not in an American or French election year, when anything less than regime change in Syria will look like abject failure.

And so the external players are shifting gears – the more outspoken ones, quietly seeking alternative options. There are two de facto groups that have formed. Group A is looking for a face-saving exit from the promised escalation in Syria. It consists of the United States, European Union and Turkey. Group B, on the other hand, is heavily invested in regime-change at any cost, and includes Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and some elements of the French, US, British, and Libyan establishments.

Before Baba Amr, these two groups were unified in maximizing their every resource to force regime change in Syria. When the UN Security Council option was blocked by Russia and China, they coalesced around the General Assembly and ad-hoc “Friends of Syria” to build coalitions, tried unsuccessfully to bring a disparate opposition fighting force (Free Syrian Army) under central leadership, pushed to recognize the disunited Syrian National Council (SNC), and eked out weekly “events” like embassy closures and political condemnations to maintain a “perception momentum.”

But those efforts have largely come to a standstill after Baba Amr. A reliable source close to the Syrian regime said to me recently: “The regime eliminated the biggest and most difficult obstacle – Baba Amr. Elsewhere, it [eliminating armed militias] is easier and less costly at all levels. Now both political and military steps can continue.”

Dealmaking Begins in Earnest

The first clear-cut public sign of this new phase was the appointment of Kofi Annan as UN envoy to Syria. Annan is an American “concession” that will draw out this dealmaking phase between the Syrian government, opposition figures and foreign governments potentially until the May 2012 parliamentary elections.

This phase is what the Russians, Chinese, Iranians, and other BRIC countries have sought from the start: the creation of a protective bubble around Syria so that it has the time and space necessary to implement domestic reforms that will not harm its geopolitical priorities.

The European Union (EU) kicked things off in March in a joint foreign ministerial communique rejecting military intervention in Syria. This was swiftly followed by Kofi Annan’s strong warning against external efforts to arm the Syrian opposition, with various Americans making similar soundings in his wake.

One very prominent Syrian reformist who has remained engaged with both sides of this conflict, confided that the externally-based Syrian opposition are now “looking over each other’s shoulders – none yet dares to speak out.” The fact is, says the source, “they are getting military assistance, but nowhere near enough. They need much, much more that what they are getting, and now the countries backing this opposition are developing conflicting agendas.”

Three high-level defections from the opposition Syrian National Council (SNC) were announced within days of that conversation, hinting further at the fundamental policy shifts occurring in all circles, behind the scenes.

The game has changed along Syria’s borders too. Turkey, a ferocious critic of the Assad government this past year, is reconsidering its priorities. A participant in a recent closed meeting with Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu reveals the emptiness of Turkish threats to form a “humanitarian corridor” or security zone on their Syrian border. Davutoglu, says my source, insisted in private that “Turkey will not do anything to harm Syria’s territorial integrity and unity because that will transfer the conflict into Turkish territory.”

Recent deliberations with Iran also seem to have resonated with the Turks. During Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi’s January visit to Ankara, a source tells me that an understanding was reached. The Iranian FM is said to have warned Turkish leaders that they were leveraging a lot of goodwill – painstakingly built up in the Muslim/Arab world – in return for “no clear benefit” in Syria. According to my source, the Turks were encouraged to strike a bargain to regain their regional standing – the key concession being that Assad would stay through the reform period.

A Hard Dose of Realpolitik

Although Turkey has backtracked from its belligerent public posture, there are still elements in the country that remain rigid on Syria. The same is true for the US and France. The fact that 2012 is an important election year in both countries plays a part in the strategy shuffle, but there are other pressing concerns too.

One major worry is that there aren’t a lot of arrows left in the quiver to fire at Syria. Without the UN Security Council granting legal authority to launch an offensive against Syria, there are only piecemeal efforts – and these have all been tried, if not yet exhausted: sanctions, demonstrations, arming militias, cyberwarfare, propaganda, diplomatic arm-twisting, and bribing defectors. But a whole year has passed with no major cracks in support from the regime’s key constituencies and that has caused some debate about whether this kind of tactical pressure may ultimately backfire.

In Washington in particular, alarm bells have been ringing since militant Islamists infiltrated the Syrian opposition militias, some pouring in from Iraq where they were only recently targeting American interests. The US has spent the better part of a decade focusing its national security apparatus on the threat from Al Qaeda and militant Islam. The execution of Osama Bin Laden and other Al Qaeda-related figures was meant to put a seal on this problem – at least in the sense that the organization has shriveled in size and influence.

But Syria threatens to blast open a Pandora’s Box of newly-motivated “soldiers of God.” And while sectarian anger may be the fuse, the conflagration will take place on a major geopolitical fault line in the Mideast, at a delicate time, on one of Israel’s borders – and changing winds could fan those flames right back in the direction of the United States and its allies.

That is a red line for the US military and a sizeable chunk of the Washington political establishment. There are other Americans, however, who are unable to view the Syrian crisis outside the prism of Iran and its growing regional influence. US Assistant Secretary of State Jeffrey Feltman, who has spent years now orchestrating the defeat of the Iran-led “Resistance Axis,” is one such player in the capital.

Feltman is part of Group B, alongside Qatar and Saudi Arabia. The battle in Syria has become an existential one for Group B. They have played too hard and revealed too much, to be able to re-assert themselves into any impartial regional role in the future – unless there is a changing of the guard in Syria.

As Group A moves toward a face-saving exit from the crisis, we are going to witness a re-telling of events in Syria. The Western “mainstream media” and major international NGOs, which have served as little more than propaganda tools for various governments seeking to escalate the Syrian crisis and vilify the Assad government, are suddenly “discovering” dangerous elements in the Syrian opposition. This scene-setting is just as deliberate as the false narratives we have witnessed from Group A since the start of the crisis.

Group B, on the other hand, remains unable to take its eye off the Syrian brass ring and may continue to employ increasingly brazen and foolhardy tactics to stimulate chaos inside the country. Syria may be Group B’s graveyard unless they are brought into these deals and promised some protection. I suspect, however, that they will instead be utilized as a valuable negotiating tool for Group A – brought into play if dealmaking is not working to their advantage.

While negotiations plod on over Syria, we can be assured that most external players have little or no consideration for actual Syrians. The regime will be focused on the long haul, which includes ridding the country of armed groups, ensuring that major roadways are free of IEDs and snipers, implementing a watered-down reform program with token opposition members to give lip service to progress, and becoming even more entrenched in the face of regional and foreign threats.

Meanwhile, the West and its regional allies will happily draw out a low-boil War of Attrition in Syria to keep the Syrian regime busy, weakened and defensive, while further seeking to cement their hold on the direction of the “Arab Spring.” They will pull levers to create flare-ups when distractions or punishments are warranted, with nary a care to the lives and livelihoods of the most disenfranchised Syrians whose blood is this conflict’s main currency.

It will never be certain if there was a revolution in Syria in 2011. The country became a geopolitical battleground less than a month after the first small protests broke out in various pockets inside Syria. And it is not over by a long stretch. Syria will continue to be the scene of conflict between two regional blocs until one side wins. This may be a new phase in Syria today where players are converging to “cut some losses,” but be assured that they are merely replenishing and repositioning their reserves for a broader regional fight.

Sharmine Narwani is a commentary writer and political analyst covering the Middle East. You can follow Sharmine on twitter @snarwani [2].

The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect Al-Akhbar’s editorial policy.

Sharmine Narwani
http://english.al-akhbar.com/print/5483

 

Comments Off on New Phase in Syria Crisis: Dealmaking Toward An Exit

Posted in EU-Syria, Iran, Middle East Geopolitics, Russia, Syria, Syrian Opposition, Turkey-Syria, United Nations, US-Syria

Assad’s Frustrated Foreign Enemies

Posted on March 16, 2012 | Comments Off on Assad’s Frustrated Foreign Enemies
Published on Al Akhbar English (http://english.al-akhbar.com)

By: Ibrahim al-Amin [1]

Published Wednesday, March 14, 2012

Various parties have been assessing the outlook for the crisis in Syria based on the evidence on the ground. The domestic scene is set to remain polarized for a long time. National understandings that can restore the country’s political unity and a cohesive national identity cannot be expected any time soon. The external scene has meanwhile become more complicated in light of the intensifying battle between the two camps over who will take hold of Syria, or who will wield the most influence in it.

On the domestic front, sources recently in Damascus say the political split is as sharp as ever. The pro-regime camp is holding together and its members have become more politically hard-line in their intolerance of all moves made by any opposition group. They deem the battle to be one against groups that have been armed – not just militarily but also in the political, propaganda, and economic senses – to target Syria, and not just its regime. They see President Bashar Assad as a symbol, and they want him to make no concessions at present. This loyalty has been accompanied by mobilization which has a minority, sectarian, and confessional dimension, though this is not fully reflected in the big cities.

On the other side, opposition groups loudly trumpet their rejection of any kind of dialogue with the regime. Indeed, they have moved on to refusing to deal with the regime’s institutions, conflating the state with the regime. They have thus started justifying attacks by gunmen on policemen and police stations or public institutions, or the bombing of vital infrastructure, as well as seeking to maximize pressure on the Syrian pound. They have also become increasingly virulent in their verbal attacks on people in the regime, and also on sects and denominations, betraying their need to keep tensions high.

A third group, which grows in size by the day, fears for Syria. This includes people who refuse to be asked where they stand. They are no longer prepared to get into a debate about who is right and who is wrong. Their concern is for the country’s unity and stability, and that priority overrides all others – even while they concur that this view ultimately works to the advantage of the regime at present.

Moreover, many Syrians who used to support the uprising for change have stepped back because of their abhorrence of the behavior of opposition groups – whether the armed groups inside Syria, or the offshore opposition groups that are trying to summon foreign military intervention in the country, without concern for the potentially catastrophic consequences of such a step.

Abroad, meanwhile, one year after the start of the crisis, plans are being reviewed. Miscalculations have been made, especially by those of the regime’s enemies who – with extreme optimism born of chronically deficient political judgement – expected that it would fall in a few weeks or months. Their disappointment and dismay shows, both on their faces and in statements. It is also apparent from the behavior of their diplomats, political allies, media, and security agencies.

This dismay is not only due to the inability of the internal opposition to bring about change within Syria. It is also because of their own failure to devise practical plans capable of achieving their goal of toppling the regime. They can now see in practice that the militarization of the civic protests in Syria created a major public credibility crisis for the opposition, and that going further as in Libya, or even Yemen, would only make people wearier.

Meanwhile, the Syrian regime and its leaders have shown no sign of collapse. Despite several months of applying security, media, economic, diplomatic, and political pressure, it is clear to the regime’s enemies that it remains cohesive, as do its military and security forces. Nor have state institutions, for all their weakness, witnessed the kind of collapse that would obviate the regime’s need for them. Moreover, the regime’s enemies can see it has managed to restore control on the ground in many parts of the country, and has dealt powerful blows to its opponents – especially the armed groups which believed in the military overthrow of the regime.

Alongside these developments, the position of Russia and China, along with other regional and world powers, provided the regime with strong support against the foreign adversaries seeking to intervene to overthrow it. This is evident from the discussions currently taking place, and even the resort to the game of envoys and go-betweens, which nobody believes will arrive at any result in the foreseeable future.

All of this further narrows the options available to the Syrian regime’s enemies. But that won’t necessarily make them give up or back down. Rather, their increasingly hostile behavior suggests they are considering other means of achieving their objective.

Among the options said to be under discussion by these countries – and which other capitals have warned against – is action to persuade senior officers to mount a coup against the regime, or to make them feel personally under threat. It also seems that the insane among the Syrian regime’s enemies have started contemplating insane actions, namely, getting rid of Assad personally.

Do they think assassinating Assad will give them a chance to take hold of Syria?

Ibrahim al-Amin is editor-in-chief of Al-Akhbar.

This article is an edited translation from the Arabic Edition.

Ibrahim al-Amin
Source URL:http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/assad%E2%80%99s-frustrated-foreign-enemies

Comments Off on Assad’s Frustrated Foreign Enemies

Posted in EU-Syria, Iran, Middle East Geopolitics, Russia, Syria, Syrian Opposition, Turkey, United Nations, US Middle East Politics, US-Syria

Syria: Regime Reclaiming the Initiative

Posted on March 16, 2012 | Comments Off on Syria: Regime Reclaiming the Initiative

By: Elie Chalhoub -Published Thursday, March 15, 2012-

Insiders say the Syrian regime is confident it is getting a grip on the crisis, but expects no early end to unrest.

It took us more than one hour to pass through the Masnaa border crossing from Lebanon into Syria because of heavy traffic. “Spring” is returning to Syria, as a senior official puts it, while noting that he uses the term literally. “People are tired. There is a great yearning for normal life,” he adds.

Last Saturday, residents of Damascus were out and about in green spaces and on sidewalks.

Sources close to the regime insist that the situation “is better than before.” They add: “This is Damascus and this is Syria. We are not saying that things couldn’t be better. But it is not on the verge of collapse as Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya claim. The situation is improving by the day. Even Saudi media admitted defeat: ‘Assad Wins the First Round!’” – a reference to the the title of a recent column in the Saudi newspaper Asharq al-Awsat by its former editor Abd al-Rahman al-Rashed.

Diplomatically, Syria remains on the defensive, trying to fend off incessant attacks. The regime had tried to prevent the crisis from being internationalized and to keep it within an Arab framework, but to no avail. Its intention was clear from the way it dealt with various Arab initiatives, last of which was the Observer Mission led by Lieutenant General Mustafa al-Dabi. The Syrian authorities afforded him maximum cooperation, but his report ended up being ignored by the Arab states.

When they brought the Syrian crisis file to the UN Security Council, the Syrian regime decided to confront them in the same arena. Damascus seems comfortable with the framework of the international game and the limits drawn by Russia and China through their decisive vetoes: “no” to any military intervention in Syria, including under the guise of “humanitarian corridors.”

The conversation is a little different behind closed doors. Sources say that the proposal which Annan presented when he met President Bashar Assad was essentially the same as the Arab proposal which Syria rejected – minus the clause requiring Assad to step down. It speaks of a cease-fire, the release of detainees, dialogue under UN auspices in Geneva, and allowing international organizations to transfer relief supplies to Syria and investigate claims of war crimes.

According to the same account, Assad replied to the latter point: “Some disobeyed orders and some made mistakes. We arrested those about whom we received complaints, we carried out investigations and there will be trials. But I ask you Mr. Annan, are you willing to do the same with the other side?”

Assad also said he welcomed all mediation attempts and was willing to engage the opposition in dialogue and reach agreement with it. But he questioned how any agreement could be implemented in the presence of armed groups, asking Annan: “Could you guarantee that these groups would commit to what we agree on?”

Assad also urged Annan to investigate who was funding and arming these groups, remarking that someone must be behind the money and weapons flooding into the country.

According to the same account, Syria is taking its time in responding to Annan’s proposals as it wants to coordinate the details with Russia and is mistrustful of the UN and Annan.

Its suspicions were reinforced by reports that after leaving Damascus, Annan flew to Qatar to meet its Prime Minister, Sheikh Hamad Bin Jasem Al Khalifa. Perhaps he considers Qatar part of the war on Syria and went there to engage it in dialogue.

Rewarding Aleppo

Discussions with Syrian officials indicate that after the parliamentary elections scheduled for next May 7, a new “crisis-management” government is expected to be formed. It is likely to be headed by a figure from Aleppo in acknowledgement of the loyalty shown by the city to the regime. Damascenes are also likely to feature prominently in the government, reflecting the regime’s gratitude for their role in protecting it, especially the business and merchant class.

Sources close to Assad revealed that he turned down a suggestion made by his advisers to form a new political party. He told them: “I am a Baathist and I will remain one.”

On the Offensive

While the defensive diplomatic battle continues, the military and security battle on the ground has seen the regime increasingly take the offensive.

Sources close to the regime confirm that the Syrian army has re-established control over the city of Idlib in the north, and is poised to attack Jabal al-Zawiya. Estimates indicate that the operation there might last many months. However the regime has set itself a target of trying to “win militarily in the main cities and towns before the end of this month,” as well as securing the country’s main highways between population centers, in light of assessments that reasserting full security control “is going to take a long time.”

One hears debates in Damascus about how the issue of armed groups should be dealt with. Some still contend that Assad has been too lenient, and demand that he crack down harder. They argue that if that had happened at Daraa when the unrest began there, the turmoil would not have spread to other provinces.

An informed source says Assad opted for a different approach: “The president was right. The military solution required the correct political circumstances in addition to preparing the Syrian army for this kind of fighting and training it in urban and street warfare.”

According to this source, these tactics were employed in the Homs neighborhood of Baba Amr, and “accomplished the mission with the least possible losses. The principle was adopted of controlling the neighborhood one house at a time. The army did not behave like a regular army that enters and establishes centers that turn into targets for gunmen. It used the style of commandos.”

The source indicates that Assad was convinced from the outset that the crisis would have to be dealt with “like a skin rash. In other words it cannot be remedied before it completely plays out. All one can do is reduce it and contain it to prevent it from spreading.”

Sources close to the regime say an effort is underway to restructure the 17 security agencies and place them – depending on the specialization of each – under the control of either the interior ministry, the army command, or the presidency. Combined, they will make up a new National Security Council. Assad wants this council to be truly accountable to the new parliament’s security and intelligence committees, which are to play a full role comparable to that of their counterparts in Western countries.

The sources say Assad is also keen to keep the security forces and the military out of civilian affairs and the media. All military and security personnel have been directed to stop dealing with the media and leave such matters to the relevant civilian officials.

This article is an edited translation from the Arabic Edition.

 

 

 

Comments Off on Syria: Regime Reclaiming the Initiative

Posted in EU-Syria, Syria, Syrian Opposition, United Nations

The western support for authoritarian regimes in the Middle East

Posted on October 28, 2011 | Comments Off on The western support for authoritarian regimes in the Middle East

A blogger view about the role of Western countries in the Syrian case.

So I guess you hate Bush, Condoleeza Rice, Cheney and most of the US present Congress and practically the whole western world for the unpunished Gaza crimes on children. And what about Chirac and the other Europeans countries who stood silent when in 2006 children were killed in South of Lebanon? Forgotten?

I condemn western countries that have taken advantages of the inherent flaws and weaknesses in some personalities in the Middle east to manipulate them to reach their own selfish goal.
The Shah, Mobarak, Ben Ali, Saleh, Ataturk were for decades pushed and encouraged by Western countries to oppress their people in the name of ‘fear” either from communism or Islam.
The occupation of Palestine sponsored by western countries has created a generation of Arab and regional authoritarians regime cherished and manipulated by the Western countries.
Syria is the only country that had a leadership opposed to the manipulation by the West, the only “non-puppet” regime in the area.

Just for that, it deserves admiration.

It has been targeted relentlessly to join the cohort of pro-west leaders. While the corruption has been present, the country has had a consistent support of the Palestinian conflict at the core of the whole illness of the region.
With the cost of not developing its economy as fast as other countries fed with millions of dollars for their submission, Syria has stood slow but independent.

The latest attack , using the “arab spring” movement as a cover up is actually an attempt of a coup d’etat. That the government reacts with indiscriminated violence is not justified but understandable when it stands against powerful countries like the US, France, the UK who can manipulate people and media easily.

If you look at it this way, deaths are as much imputable to the Western countries incitations to hatred and to a change of regime that would have made Syria another puppet as to the awkward and excessive methods used by the government on the defense. The government’s aim was to stop and prevent demonstrations that could degenerate into civil war and break the resistance Syria had toward western plans in the region in support of Israel. It was also certainly to keep the power structure intact and in the same hands.

Your hatred is natural but it should also be directed to the countries behind this situation, while you probably believe they are genuinely calling for ‘freedom’ and democracy.

We all care for the lives of children, but foreign policy and greed are cynical, they don’t value human lives.

http://www.joshualandis.com/blog/?p=12558&cp=2#comment-280533

Comments Off on The western support for authoritarian regimes in the Middle East

Posted in EU-Syria, Israel, Middle East Geopolitics, Religion, Syria, Syrian Opposition, US Middle East Politics, US-Syria

The ‘great game’ in Syria

Posted on October 22, 2011 | Comments Off on The ‘great game’ in Syria

By Alastair Crooke

This summer, a senior Saudi official told John Hannah [1], former United States vice president Dick Cheney’s former chief-of-staff, that from the outset of the Syrian upheaval in March, the king has believed that regime change in Syria would be highly beneficial to Saudi interests: “The king knows that other than the collapse of the Islamic Republic itself, nothing would weaken Iran more than losing Syria,” said the official.

This is today’s “great game”: the formula for playing it has changed; the US-instigated “color” revolutions in the former Soviet republics have given way to a bloodier, and more multi-layered process today, but the underlying psychology remains unchanged.

The huge technical requirements of mounting such a complex

game in Syria are indeed prodigious: but in focussing so closely on technique and on coordinating diverse interests, inevitably something important may recede from view, too.

Europeans and Americans and certain Gulf states may see the Syria game as the logical successor to the supposedly successful Libya “game” in remaking the Middle East, but the very tools that are being used on their behalf are highly combustible and may yet return to haunt them – as was experienced in the wake of the 1980s “victory” in Afghanistan.

It will not be for the first time that Western interests sought to use others for their ends, only to find they have instead been used.

In any event, the tactics in Syria, in spite of heavy investment, seem to be failing. Yet Western strategy, in response to the continuing cascade of new events in the region, remains curiously static, grounded in gaming the awakening and tied ultimately to the fragile thread connecting an 88-year-old king to life.

There seems to be little thought about the strategic landscape when, and as, that thread snaps. We may yet see the prevailing calculus turned inside out: nobody knows. But does the West really believe that being tied into a model of Gulf monarchical legitimacy and conservatism in an era of popular disaffection to be a viable posture – even if those states do buy more Western weapons?

What then is the new anatomy of the great game? In the past, color revolutions were largely blueprinted in the offices of the political consultancies of “K” Street in Washington. But in the new format, the “technicians” attempting to shape the region [2] , hail directly from the US government: according to reports by senior official sources in the region, Jeffrey Feltman, a former ambassador in Lebanon, and presently assistant secretary of state, as chief coordinator [3], together with two former US ambassadors, Ron Schlicher and David Hale, who is also the new US Middle East Peace Envoy.

And instead of an operations center established in some phony “Friends of Syria” organization established in Washington, there is a gold-plated operations center located in Doha, financed, according to a number of sources, by big Qatari money.

The origins of the present attempt to refashion the Middle East lie with the aftermath of Israel’s failure in 2006 to seriously damage Hezbollah. In the post-conflict autopsy, Syria was spotlighted as the vulnerable lynchpin connecting Hezbollah to Iran. And it was Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia who planted the first seed: hinting to US officials that something indeed might be done about this Syria connector, but only through using the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, adding quickly in response to the predictable demurs, that managing the Syrian Brotherhood and other Islamists could safely be left to him.

John Hannah noted on ForeignPolicy.com [4] that “Bandar working without reference to US interests is clearly cause for concern; but Bandar working as a partner against a common Iranian enemy is a major strategic asset”. Bandar was co-opted.

Hypothetical planning suddenly metamorphosed into concrete action only earlier this year, after the fall of Saad Hariri’s government in Lebanon, and the overthrow of president Hosni Mubarak in Egypt: Suddenly, Israel seemed vulnerable, and a weakened Syria, enmired in troubles, held a strategic allure.

In parallel, Qatar had stepped to the fore, as Azmi Bishara, a pan-Arabist, former Israeli parliament member, expelled from the Knesset and now established in Doha, architected a schema through which television – as various in the Arabic press have reported [5] – that is, al-Jazeera, would not just report revolution, but instantiate it for the region – or at least this is what was believed in Doha in the wake of the Tunisia and Egyptian uprisings.

This was a new evolution over the old model: Hubristic television, rather than mere media management. But Qatar was not merely trying to leverage human suffering into an international intervention by endlessly repeating “reforms are not enough” and the “inevitability” of Assad’s fall, but also – as in Libya – Qatar was directly involved as a key operational actor and financier.

The next stage was to draw French President Nikolas Sarkozy into the campaign through the emir of Qatar’s expansive nature and ties to Sarkozy, supplemented by Feltman’s lobbying. An “Elysee team” of Jean-David Levite, Nicholas Gallet and Sarkozy, was established, with Sarkozy’s wife enlisting Bernard Henri-Levy, the arch promoter of the Benghazi Transitional Council model that had been so effective in inflating North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) into an instrument of regime change.

Finally, President Barack Obama delegated Turkey [6] to play point on Syria’s border. Both of the latter components however are not without their challenges from their own security arms, who are skeptical of the efficacy of the Transitional Council model, and opposed to military intervention.

The Turkish leadership, in particular, is pushed by party pressures in one direction [7] , whilst at another there are deep misgivings about Turkey becoming a NATO “corridor” into Syria. Even Bandar is not without challenges: he has no political umbrella from the king, and others in the family are playing other Islamist cards to different ends.

In operational terms, Feltman and his team coordinate, Qatar hosts the “war room”, the “news room” and holds the purse strings, Paris and Doha lead on pushing the Transitional Council model, whilst Bandar [8] and Turkey jointly manage the Sunni theater in-country, both armed and unarmed.

The Salafist component of armed and combat experienced fighters was to have been managed within this framework, but increasingly they went their own way, answering to a different agenda, and having separate finances.

If the scope of the Syria “game” – for let us not forget the many killed (including civilians, security forces, and armed fighters) make it no game – is on a different scale to the early “color” revolutions, so its defects are greater too. The NTC paradigm, already displaying its flaws in Libya, is even more starkly defective in Syria, with the opposition “council” put together by Turkey, France and Qatar caught in a catch-22 situation. The Syrian security structures have remained rock solid [9] through seven months – defections have been negligible – and Assad’s popular support base is intact.

Only external intervention could change that equation, but for the opposition to call for it, would be tantamount to political suicide, and they know it. Doha and Paris [10] may continue to try to harass the world towards some intervention by maintaining attrition but the signs are that the internal opposition will opt to negotiate.

But the real danger in all this, as John Hannah himself notes on ForeignPolicy.com [11], is that the Saudis, “with their back to the wall”, “might once again fire up the old jihadist network and point it in the general direction of Shi’ite Iran”.

In fact, that is exactly what is happening, but the West does not seem to have noticed. As Foreign Affairs noted last week, Saudi and its Gulf allies are “firing up” the Salafists [12], not only to weaken Iran, but mainly in order to do what they see is necessary to survive – to disrupt and emasculate the awakenings which threaten absolute monarchism.

Salafists are being used for this end in Syria [13] , in Libya, in Egypt (see their huge Saudi flag waving turn-out in Tahrir Square in July ) [14] in Lebanon, Yemen [15] and Iraq.

Salafists may be generally viewed as non-political and pliable, but history is far from comforting. If you tell people often enough that they shall be the king-makers in the region and pour buckets-full of money at them, do not be surprised if they then metamorphose – yet again – into something very political and radical.

Michael Scheuer, the former head of the Central Intelligence Agency Bin Laden Unit, recently warned [16] that the Hillary Clinton-devised response to the Arab awakening, of implanting Western paradigms, by force if necessary, into the void of fallen regimes, will be seen as a “cultural war on Islam” and will set the seeds of a further round of radicalization.

Saudi Arabia is America’s ally. The US, as friends, should ask them if the fall of Assad, and the sectarian conflict that is almost certain to ensue, is really in their interest: Do they imagine that their Sunni allies in Iraq and Lebanon will escape the consequences? Do they really imagine that the Shi’ites of Iraq will not put two-and-two together and take harsh precautions?

One of the sad paradoxes to the sectarian “voice” adopted by the Gulf leaders to justify their repression of the awakening has been the undercutting of moderate Sunnis, now caught between the rock of being seen as a Western tool, and the hard place of Sunni Salafists just waiting for the chance to displace them.

Notes
1. See here.
2. See here.
3. See here and here.
4. See here.
5. Qataris seeking alternative for Waddah Khanfar to manage Al-Jazeera, Al-Intiqad, 20 September 2011.
6. See here.
7. See here.
8. See here.
9. See here.
10. See here.
11. See here.
12. See here.
13. See here.
14. See here.
15. See here.
16. See here.

Alastair Crooke is founder and director of Conflicts Forum and is a former adviser to the former EU Foreign Policy Chief, Javier Solana, from 1997-2003.

(Copyright 2011 Alastair Crooke.)

http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MJ22Ak01.html#.TqFqGuDRsv4.blogger

Comments Off on The ‘great game’ in Syria

Posted in EU-Syria, Iran-Syria, Israel, Middle East Geopolitics, Syria, Syrian Opposition, Turkey-Syria, US Middle East Politics

The Syrian National Council recognition option

Posted on October 11, 2011 | Comments Off on The Syrian National Council recognition option

JC   1 september 2011 —

Recognizing the SNC is an act of war as this opposition is specifically asking the international community to condone the toppling of a government that of is part of the UN.
The TNC in Libya was recognized only by 30 countries only when NATO was appointed to ensure that the intended ‘regime change’ was implemented under a ambiguous agenda of a Human Rights issue by the UNSC resolution.

NATO is reluctant to act without a UNSC resolution and Russia and China are obstinate in rejecting any military action on Syria.
Therefore as long as the international community is not ready for a war, then the SNC will not be recognized, except by some die hard countries like France and some others.

Time is playing against the SNC: If the present Syrian government starts to seriously implement the reforms under Russia and Iran’s extreme pressure and succeeds, the only issue that the SNC could ask for is a human rights condemnation, nothing else.

The first major strategy of the hardline opposition as we are seeing today, after the failure of creating a massive popular uprising is to prevent any reform to be implemented. This is why they are resorting to targeted assassinations to stir the public opinion and exhaust the government to weaken it. Of course using intensively the media to accuse the government of these assassinations.

The second strategy is to create enough fear and confrontation in the villages and towns on the borders to create an influx of refugees in Turkey and Lebanon ( surprisingly there are no refugees reported in Jordan and Iraq). This will provoke a ‘humanitarian crisis’ like Libya and allow the UN to intervene.

The hardline opposition is aware that if the reforms succeed in diverting their calls for a regime change to a negotiation with the present government, they are finished and will need to leave the country in exile or just disappear. So, for them it is life or death issue.
Therefore I expect an increase of targeted killings and a tougher actions from the army as well as terrorists actions in villages on the border with a media campaign accusing the army of shooting at the villagers.
The limit date is the December election.

Comments Off on The Syrian National Council recognition option

Posted in EU-Syria, Russia, Syrian Opposition