http://www.zerohedge.com/news/nato-member-turkey-says-syrian-jet-take-down-hostile-act
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 06/24/2012 09:52 -0400
And so the escalation-cum-provocation-cum false flag is complete. There was a time when shooting down a foreign jet over one's territory was considered self-defense. But not when the one doing the defending is perpetual media bogeyman Syria, which "unnamed sources say" kills hundreds, nay thousands of its own people daily, usually in round, soundbitey numbers. Of course, the other side to the story is irrelevant: the Western-led media is never known to fabricate stories that suit the status quo's power and military industrial complex interests. All thatis relevant is for the west, aka NATO, aka Hillary Clinton to get an angle to push for provocation. She just got it. As we suspected on Friday, there was much more than met the eye with the Syrian take down of a Turkey F-4 jet. Remember what we saidon Friday: "The only question remains whether Syria's act was offensive or defensive. Naturally, its version is one of self-defense. Turkey obviously will claim it was in its right to be wherever the plane may be, and will say this was an act of provocation. Then NATO, read Hillary Clinton, will promptly step in, and make this a case in which Turkey was in its right and that Syria committed an act of aggression. From there, things will just escalate, and can potentially deteriorate to a far more troubling scale, because as we reminded earlier, Syria has recently become a major symbol for NATO vs the Russia-China axis." And sure enough, just out from CNN: "Turkey declares jet shoot-down a 'hostile' act."
and.....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/24/turkey-plane-shot-down-syria
http://news.antiwar.com/2012/06/22/official-israel-wont-attack-iran-until-after-western-talks-end/
The official said Western powers made it clear there would be five rounds of talks, and with the Moscow talks over that means two more rounds are left, including next month’s Istanbul talks and another, as yet unscheduled round. He added that the assumption was that there would be no serious progress until the fifth round, and that the other four were just “posturing.”
NATO Member Turkey Says Syrian Jet Take Down Is A Hostile Act
And so the escalation-cum-provocation-cum false flag is complete. There was a time when shooting down a foreign jet over one's territory was considered self-defense. But not when the one doing the defending is perpetual media bogeyman Syria, which "unnamed sources say" kills hundreds, nay thousands of its own people daily, usually in round, soundbitey numbers. Of course, the other side to the story is irrelevant: the Western-led media is never known to fabricate stories that suit the status quo's power and military industrial complex interests. All thatis relevant is for the west, aka NATO, aka Hillary Clinton to get an angle to push for provocation. She just got it. As we suspected on Friday, there was much more than met the eye with the Syrian take down of a Turkey F-4 jet. Remember what we saidon Friday: "The only question remains whether Syria's act was offensive or defensive. Naturally, its version is one of self-defense. Turkey obviously will claim it was in its right to be wherever the plane may be, and will say this was an act of provocation. Then NATO, read Hillary Clinton, will promptly step in, and make this a case in which Turkey was in its right and that Syria committed an act of aggression. From there, things will just escalate, and can potentially deteriorate to a far more troubling scale, because as we reminded earlier, Syria has recently become a major symbol for NATO vs the Russia-China axis." And sure enough, just out from CNN: "Turkey declares jet shoot-down a 'hostile' act."
More:
Turkey officially considers the shooting down of one of its military fighter jets by Syria to be a hostile act, the Turkish Foreign Ministry said Sunday.Turkey delivered the message in a diplomatic note to the Syrian consulate in Istanbul, calling the incident "a hostile movement," ministry spokesman Selcuk Unal told CNN.Turkish search-and-rescue teams found the wreckage of the fighter jet in the Mediterranean Sea on Sunday, about 1,300 meters (4,260 feet) underwater, he said.They have not reached the wreck yet, he added. There was no word about survivors of the two-man crew.The incident raises the temperature between the two regional powers significantly.Syria gave no warning before shooting down the F-4 Phantom jet which strayed into its territory, Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said Sunday in an appearance filled with tough talk against Syria.He accused Syria of spreading "disinformation" about the incident."They have created the impression that Syria felt like it was an act of aggression and they shot it down. ... from our perspective that's not the case," Davutoglu told reporters.The plane in the Friday incident was unarmed, not sending hostile signals, and identifiable as Turkish, he said."You have to first send a caution, a warning," he said in the first detailed Turkish statement on the international incident. "If the warning doesn't work, you scramble your planes, you send a stronger signal, you force the plane to land. There wasn't enough time to do any of that in the time that our plane was in Syrian airspace.""We have to question how it is that an unarmed, solo flight got this response from the Syrians," he said.He said the fighter jet was in international airspace when it was fired upon.It had strayed into Syrian territory in a "short, unintentional violation," but was notified by the Turkish side that it had crossed the line, and returned to international airspace, Davutoglu said.Next steps:1. NATO issues formal complaint, with open-ended demands.2. Russia, then China, respond in kind.3. Geopolitical risk goes offerless.
and.....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/24/turkey-plane-shot-down-syria
Turkey goes to Nato over plane it says Syria downed in international airspace
Foreign minister says Ankara will take incident to Nato and dismisses Syria's claim it did not know plane was Turkish
Email
Ahmet Davutoglu says the Turkish jet entered Syrian airspace but quickly left, and was then shot down without warning by Syrian forces Photograph: Adem Altan/AFP/Getty Images
Nato is to meet on Tuesday at Turkey's request following the shooting down of one of its warplanes by Syria in what it says was international airspace.
Turkey's foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, said Ankara would formally present the incident to its Nato allies to prepare a response under article four of the organisation's founding treaty.
The article provides for states to "consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the parties is threatened". It stops short of the explicit mention of possible armed responses cited in article five.
The Turkish foreign ministry said on Sunday it knows the coordinates of the plane's wreckage 1,300 metres deep in the Mediterranean sea, but had not found it or the pilots. Turkey has filed an official protest to Syria about shooting down.
Davutoglu told the state broadcaster TRT on Sunday that the plane had entered Syrian airspace but quickly left when warned by Turkey and was shot down in international airspace several minutes later.
He said the plane was clearly marked as Turkish, dismissing Syria's earlier statement that it had not known the plane belonged to Turkey, and that it was shot down over Syrian airspace. He said it was on a training flight to test Turkey's radar capabilities and had no "covert mission related to Syria".
Turkey's president, Abdullah Gül, said on Saturday that it was "routine" for jets flying at high speeds to violate other countries' air spaces for short periods of time.
A statement by the Syrian military said the Turkish plane was flying low 1km off the Syrian coast when it was hit by anti-aircraft fire. The plane fell in Syrian waters seven miles west of the village of Um al-Touyour.
In a telephone interview with Turkish TV news channel A Haber on Saturday, Syrian foreign ministry spokesman Jihad Makdissi said the incident was "not an attack".
"An unidentified object entered our airspace and unfortunately as a result it was brought down. It was understood only later that it was a Turkish plane," A Haber quoted Makdissi in a translation of the interview. "There was no hostile act against Turkey whatsoever. It was just an act of defence for our sovereignty."
The Iranian foreign minister, Ali Akbar Salehi, urged Turkey and Syria late on Saturday to show restraint over the incident, his ministry said.
In a telephone conversation with Davutoglu, Salehi said he hoped the two sides would "settle the issue peacefully to maintain regional stability", said a statement on the Iranian foreign ministry's website.
The foreign secretary, William Hague, said the "outrageous" act underlined the need for Assad's regime to go. "My thoughts and sympathies are with the families and friends of the missing Turkish pilots. I have made clear to Foreign Minister Davutoglu the UK's strong support for the Turkish government at this difficult time," he said in a statement.
"The Assad regime should not make the mistake of believing that it can act with impunity. It will be held to account for its behaviour. The UK stands ready to pursue robust action at the United Nations security council."
Turkey has been one of the Syrian regime's most ardent critics over its brutal domestic crackdown and the incident threatens to add a new international dimension to the internal revolt against the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad.
With the second biggest army in Nato, and 30 years of experience fighting Kurdish rebels, Turkey would be a formidable foe for the Syrian army, which is already struggling to contain the 16-month-old revolt.
Ankara, which had drawn close to Syria before the uprising against Assad, turned against the Syrian leader when he responded violently to pro-democracy protests inspired by popular upheavals elsewhere in the Arab world. Turkey now gives refuge to the rebel Free Syrian Army on its frontier with Syria.
http://news.antiwar.com/2012/06/22/official-israel-wont-attack-iran-until-after-western-talks-end/
Official: Israel Won’t Attack Iran Until After Western Talks End
'Two More Rounds' of Talks Before Attack Can Happen
by Jason Ditz, June 22, 2012
An unnamed but reportedly “well-placed” Israeli official is telling the media that Israel will not launch any military attack on Iran until the P5+1 talks have ending, saying that “of course” they will have to wait until the talks end.
The official said Western powers made it clear there would be five rounds of talks, and with the Moscow talks over that means two more rounds are left, including next month’s Istanbul talks and another, as yet unscheduled round. He added that the assumption was that there would be no serious progress until the fifth round, and that the other four were just “posturing.”
The position is starkly different from those taken by named Israeli officials on the record, as they have insisted all along that they were liable to launch an attack on Iran at any time, including right in the middle of the negotiations, and indications that the military was “super ready” to attack Iran at a moment’s notice.
If what today’s official said is true that means the past threats, as well as the feigned outrage at additional rounds of negotiation after the first one, were all posturing as well, with Israel perfectly aware that the talks would be extended and were already resigned to waiting it out.
It also brings the timetable for the oft-threatened war into greater focus. With round four scheduled for early July, round five is likely to be in late July or early August, meaning that once again the 2-3 month period ahead of the US elections, often termed the “sweet spot” for the war, will also mark the end of this round of negotiations.
and......
http://www.acus.org/new_atlanticist/why-nato-wont-go-war-over-syria-shooting-down-turkish-jet
Why NATO Won't Go To War Over Syria Shooting Down Turkish Jet
James Joyner | June 23, 2012
Following yesterday's shoot-down of a Turkish F-4 by Syria has once again raised the specter of NATO action under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. It's not going to happen.
Article 5, while relatively short, is much more complicated than commonly understood:
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.Some commentators on Twitter have argued that Article 5 is not triggered because the incident didn't take place in Europe and was aimed at an aircraft, not the territory of a NATO member. But Article 6 dispels both of those issues:For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:
- on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France (2), on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
- on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.
So, aircraft are specifically included as a potential trigger. And the area surrounding Turkey is included as well--added as an amendment to the original treaty by a 1951 Protocol on the accession of Greece and Turkey. Indeed, there would have been little benefit to Turkey in joining NATO if it weren't included under the Article 5 umbrella, the most fundamental Alliance commitment.Instead, the operative word that almost certainly disqualifies this incident from an Article 5 response is "attack." Turkey was engaged in aggressive action along its border with Syria during a particularly tense situation and flew into Syrian airspace. While shooting down the plane was almost certainly an overreaction--the Assad government has said as much--it's hardly an "attack."Ultimately, like the "high crimes and misdemeanor" threshold for impeachment set forth by the US Constitution, it's a judgment call. In the former case, the House of Representatives makes the call; in the latter, it's the North Atlantic Council.But it's virtually inconceivable that the NAC would deem this to be a qualifying "attack." First, Article 5 couches the response in terms of "the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations." An overly aggressive defensive action by Syria--especially a one-off--would not seem to qualify. While the Turkish pilot would certainly have been within his rights to use deadly force to protect himself, a retaliatory strike at this juncture by Turkey--much less its NATO allies--would be in violation of the UN Charter. Second, borrowing language from Article 51, Article 5 specifies the rationale for the use of force as "to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area." Given that the incident is already contained--that is, not likely to be followed by any sort of follow-on action by Syria absent further provocation--said security already exists. Indeed, a NATO or Turkish response would make the area more, not less, secure.A second misconception is that an attack under Article 5 will automatically be met by unified military action by all NATO states. Instead, a declaration by the NAC that Article 5 has been triggered is but a first step; decisions as to what response to take must follow. Not all attacks are equal. Even outside the politics of an alliance, states weigh incidents in terms of severity, the existing relationship with the attacking state, the international environment, and the likely fall-out effects of various response options.Article 5 has been operative since the North Atlantic Treaty went into effect since 1949. It has been invoked and acted upon precisely once, following the al Qaeda terrorist attack on the United States launched from Afghanistan. Even then, the Alliance response was cautious:Article 5 has thus been invoked, but no determination has yet been made whether the attack against the United States was directed from abroad. If such a determination is made, each Ally will then consider what assistance it should provide. In practice, there will be consultations among the Allies. Any collective action by NATO will be decided by the North Atlantic Council. The United States can also carry out independent actions, consistent with its rights and obligations under the UN Charter.Allies can provide any form of assistance they deem necessary to respond to the situation. This assistance is not necessarily military and depends on the material resources of each country. Each individual member determines how it will contribute and will consult with the other members, bearing in mind that the ultimate aim is to "to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area".By invoking Article 5, NATO members have shown their solidarity toward the United States and condemned, in the strongest possible way, the terrorist attacks against the United States on 11 September.If the conditions are met for the application of Article 5, NATO Allies will decide how to assist the United States. (Many Allies have clearly offered emergency assistance). Each Ally is obliged to assist the United States by taking forward, individually and in concert with other Allies, such action as it deems necessary. This is an individual obligation on each Ally and each Ally is responsible for determining what it deems necessary in these particular circumstances.Ultimately, of course, NATO decided to join the United States in its fight against al Qaeda in Afghanistan. That some Allies joined with more vigor and usefulness than others has been well documented and need not be rehashed here. But that statement of September 12 outlines the nature of the Article 5 obligation nicely: the NAC may recommend action but it's ultimately up to the individual Allies to decide whether and how to respond.In the case of Syria, of course, the incident hardly comes out of the blue. Tensions have been escalating for well over a year, with a series of international condemnations and resolutions from the UN and many if not most NATO states. At the same time, the Security Council has, through the veto power of Russia and China, declined to act. And NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen has repeatedly and vehemently declared from the outset that NATO has no intention of repeating its intervention in Libya with one in Syria.Granting that I oppose Western intervention into Syria just as I did into Libya, it's difficult to see how yesterday's incident changes anything. Surely, the killing of some 20,000 Syrians, most innocent civilians, is a greater cause for action than the downing of a single fighter jet flying where it wasn't supposed to? And the facts on the ground haven't changed one iota: Bashar al-Assad still has a powerful, loyal military and the opposition is a fractured mess. So, NATO military action is no more appealing now than it was Friday morning.Additionally, Assad has handled the aftermath of this incident deftly. He swiftly expressed remorse for the loss of life caused by the shooting down of Turkey's jet--almost surely the decision of a relative low level operator making a rapid decision under extreme stress rather than a considered policy judgment of the central government--and promptly not only gave Turkey permission to begin a recovery operation in Syrian space but joined in. While he's a vicious thug willing to do just about anything to stay in power, he's rather clearly not angling for war with NATO, much less Turkey.It's inconceivable that NATO will decide to start yet another war under these circumstances.
No comments:
Post a Comment