http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=301670
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/in-new-offer-syrian-opposition-leader-offers-to-talk-to-assad-regime-provoking-rebel-outcry/2013/01/30/40f42718-6b1e-11e2-9a0b-db931670f35d_print.html
The remarks by Moaz al-Khatib marked a clear departure from the opposition line, which has been categorical refusal to talk to the government.
Opponents of the Assad regime have been divided among political and military groups, many of them out of touch and at odds with each other. The political groups range from secular liberals to al-Qaida-linked Islamist extremists, while many of the armed rebel units operate independently. The divisions have hampered their progress and deterred potential backers from sending significant supplies of weapons or funds.
Al-Khatib was chosen in November to head the Syrian National Coalition, a new umbrella group designed to represent most of the rebels and soothe Western concerns about the ability of the opposition to pull together and present a viable alternative to Assad’s rule.
His offer to talk to regime officials threatened to fracture the opposition once again. After an outcry, al-Khatib said he was just expressing his own opinion.
Last week the Syrian government said that opposition figures would be allowed safe return to Damascus for “national dialogue” talks — an offer rejected by most opposition leaders. The government suggestion followed a recent speech by Assad in which he proposed a peace initiative that includes national dialogue and a new government and constitution.
The proposal was almost unanimously rejected by the opposition.
In his surprise turnabout, al-Khatib said he was willing to talk with representatives of Assad’s regime “in Egypt, Turkey or Tunisia” on condition the government releases tens of thousands of political prisoners and renews all expired passports held by Syrians abroad — a reference to exiled opposition leaders and activists who have been stripped of their Syrian passports.
There was no immediate government response to the comments by al-Moaz, a 52-year-old preacher-turned-activist chosen to head the coalition as a unifying figure.
Al-Moaz’s statements, posted on his Facebook page, were later taken down and replaced by another posting in which he clarified he would be negotiating a transitional phase “to prevent more bloodshed” and asserting that he was expressing his personal opinion.
“There are those who sit on their couches and say ... do not negotiate. We don’t negotiate about the regime remaining, but for its departure at the lowest cost in blood and destruction,” he wrote.
The Syrian National Council, the largest group in the coalition, said al-Khatib’s statements do not reflect the position of the coalition, which refuses to negotiate with a “criminal regime.”
The only problem with that, beyond the fact that there is a broad northern desert beyond Kidal, is that Kidal had been lost by the rebels days ago by Tuareg secessionists, and the rebels were already gone.
In the wake of reported Israeli air strike on a Syrian weapons center, Iran issued a threat to Israel on Thursday.
The Iranian regime's English language mouthpiece, Press TV, quoted a deputy foreign minister as saying that the "strike on Syria will have serious consequences for Tel Aviv." The official did not elaborate.
Last week, the AP quoted a senior adviser to Iran's supreme leader as saying that any attack on Syria would be seen by Tehran as an attack on itself.
The official, Ali Akbar Velayati, said the regime of Basher Assad is a central component of the "resistance front."
Meanwhile, Lebanon's militant group Hezbollah condemned on Thursday an Israeli attack which it said targeted a Syrian research center, saying it was an attempt to thwart Arab military capabilities and pledging to stand by its ally President Bashar Assad.
"Hezbollah strongly condemns this new Zionist aggression on Syria,” the group said in a statement, calling for "wide-scale condemnation from the international community," the group said in a statement.
The group "expressed its full solidarity with Syria's leadership, army and people."
Sources said on Wednesday that Israel Air Force jets bombed a convoy near Syria's border with Lebanon, apparently targeting weapons destined for Hezbollah. Syria denied the reports, saying the target had been a military research center.
Russia said on Thursday it was very concerned about reports of an Israeli air attack deep inside Syria near Damascus and that any such action, if confirmed, would amount to unacceptable military interference in the war-ravaged country.
"If this information is confirmed, then we are dealing with unprovoked attacks on targets on the territory of a sovereign country, which blatantly violates the UN Charter and is unacceptable, no matter the motives to justify it," the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement.
Syrian state television accused Israel of bombing a military research center at Jamraya, between Damascus and the nearby border. Syrian rebels disputed that, saying their forces had attacked the site.
Russia has been trying to shield Syrian President Bashar Assad from international pressure to end the civil war against opposition forces that has ravaged the country over 22 months and killed an estimated 60,000 people. Moscow has repeatedly spoken against any foreign interference in Syria, especially military action.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/in-new-offer-syrian-opposition-leader-offers-to-talk-to-assad-regime-provoking-rebel-outcry/2013/01/30/40f42718-6b1e-11e2-9a0b-db931670f35d_print.html
In new offer, Syrian opposition leader offers to talk to Assad regime, provoking rebel outcry
By Associated Press,
BEIRUT — Syria’s top opposition leader declared on Wednesday that he is willing to negotiate with members of President Bashar Assad’s regime to bring a peaceful end to the country’s civil war, provoking an outcry from opposition groups that insist Assad must step down first.The remarks by Moaz al-Khatib marked a clear departure from the opposition line, which has been categorical refusal to talk to the government.
Opponents of the Assad regime have been divided among political and military groups, many of them out of touch and at odds with each other. The political groups range from secular liberals to al-Qaida-linked Islamist extremists, while many of the armed rebel units operate independently. The divisions have hampered their progress and deterred potential backers from sending significant supplies of weapons or funds.
Al-Khatib was chosen in November to head the Syrian National Coalition, a new umbrella group designed to represent most of the rebels and soothe Western concerns about the ability of the opposition to pull together and present a viable alternative to Assad’s rule.
His offer to talk to regime officials threatened to fracture the opposition once again. After an outcry, al-Khatib said he was just expressing his own opinion.
Last week the Syrian government said that opposition figures would be allowed safe return to Damascus for “national dialogue” talks — an offer rejected by most opposition leaders. The government suggestion followed a recent speech by Assad in which he proposed a peace initiative that includes national dialogue and a new government and constitution.
The proposal was almost unanimously rejected by the opposition.
In his surprise turnabout, al-Khatib said he was willing to talk with representatives of Assad’s regime “in Egypt, Turkey or Tunisia” on condition the government releases tens of thousands of political prisoners and renews all expired passports held by Syrians abroad — a reference to exiled opposition leaders and activists who have been stripped of their Syrian passports.
There was no immediate government response to the comments by al-Moaz, a 52-year-old preacher-turned-activist chosen to head the coalition as a unifying figure.
Al-Moaz’s statements, posted on his Facebook page, were later taken down and replaced by another posting in which he clarified he would be negotiating a transitional phase “to prevent more bloodshed” and asserting that he was expressing his personal opinion.
“There are those who sit on their couches and say ... do not negotiate. We don’t negotiate about the regime remaining, but for its departure at the lowest cost in blood and destruction,” he wrote.
The Syrian National Council, the largest group in the coalition, said al-Khatib’s statements do not reflect the position of the coalition, which refuses to negotiate with a “criminal regime.”
“No dialogue with the butchers,” Suheir Atassi, a senior member of the coalition, wrote on her Twitter account.
Still, the opinion expressed by al-Khatib marked the first opening for the possibility of dialogue to end a nearly two-year-long conflict that the U.N. says has killed more than 60,000 people.
Al-Khatib’s statement came a day after the international peace envoy for Syria gave a bleak briefing to the U.N. Security Council.
Lakhdar Brahimi suggested that the Security Council revisit the Geneva Communique of June 2012, a broad but ambiguous proposal endorsed by the Western powers and Russia to provide a basis for negotiations.
Assad’s role in a transition government was a main bone of contention during the negotiations toward drafting the Geneva Communique, and it was left vague. The United States and Russia continue to disagree on Assad’s role, though both signed off on the communique.
The outline has yet to lead to meaningful progress to end the civil war.
Still, the opinion expressed by al-Khatib marked the first opening for the possibility of dialogue to end a nearly two-year-long conflict that the U.N. says has killed more than 60,000 people.
Al-Khatib’s statement came a day after the international peace envoy for Syria gave a bleak briefing to the U.N. Security Council.
Lakhdar Brahimi suggested that the Security Council revisit the Geneva Communique of June 2012, a broad but ambiguous proposal endorsed by the Western powers and Russia to provide a basis for negotiations.
Assad’s role in a transition government was a main bone of contention during the negotiations toward drafting the Geneva Communique, and it was left vague. The United States and Russia continue to disagree on Assad’s role, though both signed off on the communique.
The outline has yet to lead to meaningful progress to end the civil war.
and......
http://antiwar.com/blog/2013/01/30/obama-will-again-thwart-un-investigations-of-drone-war/
Obama Will Again Thwart UN Investigations of Drone War
John Glaser, January 30, 2013
Micah Zenko is betting that the latest UN investigation into drone killings by the United States “is unlikely to compel increased transparency from the Obama administration.” Essentially, this is because similar investigations have been going on for about ten years and the Bush and Obama administrations have had the same response to them: “Screw off.”
After the first targeted assassination by drone killed six al-Qaeda suspects in November 2002 in Yemen, the UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions, Asma Jahangir, demanded some answers and indicated this probably violated international law. Jahangir wrote:
The Special Rapporteur is extremely concerned that should the information received be accurate, an alarming precedent might have been set for extrajudicial execution by consent of Government. The Special Rapporteur acknowledges that Governments have a responsibility to protect their citizens against the excesses of non-State actors or other authorities, but these actions must be taken in accordance with international human rights and humanitarian law. In the opinion of the Special Rapporteur, the attack in Yemen constitutes a clear case of extrajudicial killing.
The Bush administration’s response, as Zenko documents, was to have “no comment” on the validity of the reports and to say that humanitarian laws wouldn’t apply to “enemy combatants.” This was of course characteristic of the post-9/11 view that the entire world was a limitless battlefield where the US was unrestrained in what it could do because it was all in self-defense against imminent terrorist attacks. Right.
And when UN special rapporteurs made similar inquiries into Obama’s drone attacks, they were similarly stiff armed. And the Obama administration made the same argument as Bush: these attacks were in self-defense of imminent terrorist attacks and it doesn’t matter that they occurred outside of an official battlefield because the world is our battlefield.
Two things are important to point out here. First of all, the notion that every one of Obama’s 400-plus drone strikes was in self-defense of an imminent terrorist attack is asinine. We know from reporting about the administration’s use of “signature strikes,” that bombs are dropped on people that the US cannot even identify, but who have supposedly demonstrated a “pattern of behavior” that suggests they might be a member of a terrorist organization. The very use of signature strikes appears to obliterate the argument that the drones are disrupting “imminent” attacks.
Obama has twisted the meaning of “imminence” in order to claim the drone war fits within international law. As Secrecy News explained while describing a legal memo scrutinizing the rationale in support of drone strikes:
For example, [Congressional Research Service] says the Administration appears to have redefined the meaning of “imminence,” one of the required elements for justifying the use of force in self-defense on the territory of another country. The standard definition of imminence refers to an overwhelming threat that allows “no moment for deliberation.” But the Administration uses imminence idiosyncratically “to refer to the window of opportunity for striking rather than the perceived immediacy of the threat of an armed attack.” This novel usage “may pose some challenge to the international law regarding the use of force,” CRS said.
The use of force in the drone war is patently illegal without the the justification of self-defense from imminent attacks. Redefining the word is a sly way of being a criminal without admitting it.
The second thing that is important when considering the Obama administration’s defense of its drone war is the issue of secrecy. If the administration is so confident that the drone war is being carried out legally, why continue to “neither confirm nor deny” the existence of specific strikes? Why has Obama kept the official legal rationale for the drone war secret, not just from the American people or the UN, but from the Senate Intelligence Committee, which is supposed to provide oversight of such policies?
If one thing has been clear throughout history and certainly in Obama’s first term as President, it’s that people in government keep things secret to protect themselves from public and legal scrutiny, not for their stated reasons of “protecting national security.”
So while the ramped up investigation at the UN is a good sign, all indications are that the Obama administration will, once again, thwart any attempt to impose legal scrutiny, transparency, and accountability to his drone war.
and.....
http://news.antiwar.com/2013/01/30/french-troops-move-northeast-into-kidal-tout-final-phase-of-invasion/
French Troops Move Northeast into Kidal, Tout ‘Final Phase’ of Invasion
Town Had Already Fallen to Rival Faction
by Jason Ditz, January 30, 2013
French officials today announced what the called the “final phase” of their invasion of Mali, invading the eastern city of Kidal, which they claimed as the “last major town” held by the rebels.
The only problem with that, beyond the fact that there is a broad northern desert beyond Kidal, is that Kidal had been lost by the rebels days ago by Tuareg secessionists, and the rebels were already gone.
The rebels, on the other hand, have moved into the mountainous regions around the northern desert, safe from French air strikes and setting up what could likely be a very ugly insurgent war.
French hopes to pull back and leave the region occupied by African forces is likely to be difficult as well, with the AU troops deployed to the region mostly untrained and under-equipped. Though they may be able to provide nominal presences, they would likely be overrun in the face of a rebel counter-attack as quickly as the Malian junta was in the first place.
and.....
http://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-likely-didnt-target-chemical-weapons-expert-says/
Israeli war planes that reportedly struck near the Lebanese border with Syria would either have bombed a convoy of conventional weapons or the nontoxic component of a chemical agent, according to a leading Israeli expert on chemical weapons.
“The chances that someone was able to bomb a chemical weapons convoy without causing significant environmental damage is very small,” Lt. Col. (res) Dr. Dany Shoham, a BESA Center fellow and expert on chemical and biological weapons in the Middle East, told The Times of Israel.
According to officials quoted by AP, the alleged airstrike had in fact hit a truck convoy carrying anti-aircraft missiles bound for the Lebanese Islamist militia Hezbollah.
Unlike, say, a nuclear weapon, which leaves a clear signature in the earth, easily readable by a geologist, chemical agents are often diffused over time and space. The toxic element is carried by the wind, at times spreading for up to 20 kilometers and, though some could be burnt off by the heat and fire of a bomb strike, the effects, Shoham said, would still have “a bigger impact” than what we have seen so far.
Chemical weapons of the sort Syria possess can come in two forms — binary and unitary. A binary weapon is composed of two components — “final precursors” in the technical jargon — that must be mixed together to create the ultimate, toxic result.
“One component is toxic, the other not so much,” Shoham said.
Theoretically, Israeli planes could have hit the less toxic agent, which is possible in principle but hard to imagine in practice, he added.
A unitary agent, either the final product of a mixed agent or not, is already toxic. A nerve agent in that state would likely be already loaded into the warhead of a missile, bomb or artillery shell, meaning that it would require a large convoy to transport. A binary agent could be packed in, say, 10 containers to a single truck, Shoham estimated.
The commander of the Israel Air Force, Maj. Gen. Amir Eshel, spoke on Tuesday of a defensive, offensive and intelligence effort that has taken the form of “a campaign between wars,” and said that while the IAF was making every effort to keep its actions beneath the threshold at which war breaks out, “if there is no choice — it may break out.”
The IAF’s spokesman confirmed that Israel was deeply concerned not just by nonconventional weapons transfers but by an array of state-of-the-art Russian weapons, including surface-to-sea missiles and advanced radars that could change the balance of power between Israel and Hezbollah.
No comments:
Post a Comment