Russia and Iran meet Syrian opposition leader .. hope we haven't seen this .. not checking ..
Rare sign of progress as foreign ministers meet Moaz al-Khatib for first time, but death toll in Syria continues to rise
Julian Borger in Munich guardian.co.uk, Sunday 3 February 2013 13.45 GMT
Moaz al-Khatib, leader of Syria's National Coalition opposition group, is widely recognised by the west and Arab world as the legitimate representative of the Syrian people. Photograph: Stringer/EPA
The Russian and Iranian foreign ministers met the Syrian opposition leader, Moaz al-Khatib, for the first time on Saturday in a rare sign of diplomatic progress, but the bloodshed from the conflict continued to worsen, with nearly 5,000 people reported dead in January alone.
The latest death toll was reported by the UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a dissident group whose casualty estimates have been consistently confirmed by the UN. Its director, Rami Abdulrahman, said his researchers had recorded the deaths of 4,851 people in January, of whom 1,030 were members of the Syrian regular security forces while 3,305 were civilians or rebel irregulars.
It marks the second worst month of the 23-month conflict. Abdulrahman said the death toll appeared to reflect the widespread and intense nature of recent fighting and the regime's heavy use of aerial bombardment of rebel-held areas.
At Munich, where a global security conference was held this weekend, there was some progress on the diplomatic front towards breaking a deadlock that has prevented a concerted international response to the conflict.
Khatib, the leader of Syria's National Coalition opposition group, widely recognised in the west and the Arab world as the legitimate representative of the Syrian people, met the foreign ministers of Russia and Iran, the Assad regime's only major supporters on the world stage.
The opposition leaders also met the US vice president, Joseph Biden, and the UN special envoy, Lakhdar Brahimi, at the margins of the Munich conference.
Following Khatib's offer to hold preliminary talks with the regime, conditional upon the release of political prisoners, the discussions raised hopes that a way could be found around the stalemate in the UN security council.
After his meeting with the Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, the Syrian opposition leader said: "Russia has a certain vision but we welcome negotiations to alleviate the crisis and there are lots of details that need to be discussed."
The Iranian foreign minister, Ali Akbar Salehi, said Iran would hold further meetings with Khatib and called for the formation of a joint transitional government from among members of the regime and the opposition under UN supervision leading to elections and a new constitution.
However, there was no sign of a breakthrough over the central sticking point that has divided the security council and prevented Syrian peace talks: the fate of Assad.
Lavrov told the Munich conference: "The persistence of those who say that priority number one is the removal of Assad is the single biggest reason for the continuing tragedy in Syria."
Salehi was less specific. His prescription for a transition to democracy made no mention of Assad, but he asked: "If you ask for the government to stand down before negotiations, who do you negotiate with?"
On Saturday, Biden gave his full support to the opposition stance that Assad has so much blood on his hands that he could not be part of a transition government. Biden said the White House was "convinced that President Assad, a tyrant hell-bent on clinging to power, is no longer fit to lead Syrian people and he must go".
Moscow has become increasingly isolated in its personal backing for Assad. Brahimi, the UN envoy, told the security council last week that the implication of an agreement of major powers last year in Geneva was that Assad should have no part in the transition process.
The Turkish foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, ridiculed the idea that the Syrian leader should remain in power to oversee a transition.
"It's easy to say the opposition should sit down with him now after 60,000 people have been killed," Davutoglu said. "If they held an election in his presence who would guarantee the security of the opposition? There should be an election, but first someone should be [held] responsible for all the killing."
The Qatari prime minister, Sheikh Hamad bin Jaber al-Thani, said repeated attempts to organise talks between Assad and the opposition in the early months of the Syrian uprising had failed because of "the intransigence of the regime".
"I have no doubt Assad will leave, because he cannot stay with so much blood on his hands," he said. He also criticised Israel for its air strikes in Syria last week, which he said would "add fuel to the fire".
In the first direct comment by an Israeli official on Tuesday's air strikes, Ehud Barak, the outgoing defence minister and deputy prime minister, appeared to confirm widespread reports that it was targeted at anti-aircraft missiles bound for Hezbollah in Lebanon.
"What happened in Syria several days ago … that's proof that when we said something we mean it, we say that we don't think it should be allowed to bring advanced weapons systems into Lebanon," Barak told the Munich conference.
Bashar Assad said on Sunday that his military was capable of confronting any "aggression" that targeted the country, in his first remarks since the Israeli strike.
The Syrian Observatory's estimate of the total number of dead from almost two years of conflict is 51,167. That is below the UN estimate of 60,000, but the Observatory's methodology is more conservative, requiring confirmation of the names of the dead. Of that total, 3,717 of the war's victims were children and 2,144 were women.
By Al Arabiya With Agencies Saturday, 02 March 2013
For the first time, Iraqi forces opened fire on Syria shelling the positions of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) days after Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki warned that a victory of the Syrian opposition would spread chaos in the region.
Al Arabiya correspondent near the Syrian-Iraqi border reported that Iraqi snipers took up positions on buildings near the Rebiya crossing while others forces shelled the positions of the Free Syrian Army.
The correspondent said that large reinforcements were being deployed by the Maliki government in Baghdad near the Syrian borders.
On Wednesday, Maliki warned if victory by Syrian rebels will spark sectarian wars in his own country and in Lebanon and will create a new haven for al-Qaeda that would destabilize the region.
“Neither the opposition nor the regime can finish each other off,” he said. “If the opposition is victorious, there will be a civil war in Lebanon, divisions in Jordan and a sectarian war in Iraq,” Maliki said in an interview with the Associated Press.
The UN is hiking its estimates of people trapped in Syria after fleeing their homes, saying some four million are now displaced inside the country and in dire need of international help.
The figure, due to be officially released in the coming days, is a dramatic increase on earlier estimates of some 2.5 million displaced put forward by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees for the period from January to June.
It also adds to the 1.2 million refugees who have fled to neighbouring countries - meaning almost a quarter of the nation's population of around 22.5 million has now been forced to flee the two-year conflict.
UNHCR regional public information officer Reem Alsalem acknowledged the initial figures laid out in the Syria humanitarian assistance plan earlier this year "no longer reflect the quickly evolving situation".
"The UN and its partners are currently in the process of revising the planning figures, scenarios and response mechanisms from now until the end of the year," she told AFP in an email.
Of the number of internally displaced people inside the Syria "it would be safe to say that they are around four million", she added.
Aid workers have struggled to reach those in most need, braving dangerous situations to get shelter, food and help to those fleeing the fighting.
But the crisis is also stretching resources as the United Nations, aid agencies and donors - the biggest of which so far is the United States - scramble to keep up with the flow of frightened families.
Health services, bakeries, schools, vital components of normal life are teetering or have shut down, leaving a population in distress.
"What we're seeing now ... is that now it is not just violence that is driving flight," Deputy Assistant Secretary for Population, Refugees and Migration Kelly Clements said.
"It is also just a decline in livelihoods, a decline in the economic means for families to be able to support themselves, it's disruption to services, it's kids not being able to go to school, it's water systems that have been either cut off or somehow affected."
WASHINGTON—The U.S. says the president of the Syrian opposition coalition has reconsidered his resignation and now intends to serve out the remainder of his six-month term.
Moderate Sunni preacher Mouaz al-Khatib (moo-AZ' al-khah-TEEB') threw the opposition into turmoil earlier this week by saying he'd step down from his position, citing restrictions on his work and frustration with international aid.
Arms Airlift to Syria Rebels Expands, With Aid From C.I.A. Reuters
Free Syrian Army fighters inside a house in Aleppo last week. The United States has been helping Arab governments and Turkey send arms to the rebels.
By C. J. CHIVERS and ERIC SCHMITT Published: March 24, 2013 228 Comments
With help from the C.I.A., Arab governments and Turkey have sharply increased their military aid to Syria’s opposition fighters in recent months, expanding a secret airlift of arms and equipment for the uprising against President Bashar al-Assad, according to air traffic data, interviews with officials in several countries and the accounts of rebel commanders.
The airlift, which began on a small scale in early 2012 and continued intermittently through last fall, expanded into a steady and much heavier flow late last year, the data shows. It has grown to include more than 160 military cargo flights by Jordanian, Saudi and Qatari military-style cargo planes landing at Esenboga Airport near Ankara, and, to a lesser degree, at other Turkish and Jordanian airports.
As it evolved, the airlift correlated with shifts in the war within Syria, as rebels drove Syria’s army from territory by the middle of last year. And even as the Obama administration has publicly refused to give more than “nonlethal” aid to the rebels, the involvement of the C.I.A. in the arms shipments — albeit mostly in a consultative role, American officials say — has shown that the United States is more willing to help its Arab allies support the lethal side of the civil war.
From offices at secret locations, American intelligence officers have helped the Arab governments shop for weapons, including a large procurement from Croatia, and have vetted rebel commanders and groups to determine who should receive the weapons as they arrive, according to American officials speaking on the condition of anonymity. The C.I.A. declined to comment on the shipments or its role in them.
The shipments also highlight the competition for Syria’s future between Sunni Muslim states and Iran, the Shiite theocracy that remains Mr. Assad’s main ally. Secretary of State John Kerry pressed Iraq on Sunday to do more to halt Iranian arms shipments through its airspace; he did so even as the most recent military cargo flight from Qatar for the rebels landed at Esenboga early Sunday night.
Syrian opposition figures and some American lawmakers and officials have argued that Russian and Iranian arms shipments to support Mr. Assad’s government have made arming the rebels more necessary.
Most of the cargo flights have occurred since November, after the presidential election in the United States and as the Turkish and Arab governments grew more frustrated by the rebels’ slow progress against Mr. Assad’s well-equipped military. The flights also became more frequent as the humanitarian crisis inside Syria deepened in the winter and cascades of refugees crossed into neighboring countries.
The Turkish government has had oversight over much of the program, down to affixing transponders to trucks ferrying the military goods through Turkey so it might monitor shipments as they move by land into Syria, officials said. The scale of shipments was very large, according to officials familiar with the pipeline and to an arms-trafficking investigator who assembled data on the cargo planes involved.
“A conservative estimate of the payload of these flights would be 3,500 tons of military equipment,” said Hugh Griffiths, of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, who monitors illicit arms transfers.
“The intensity and frequency of these flights,” he added, are “suggestive of a well-planned and coordinated clandestine military logistics operation.”
Although rebel commanders and the data indicate that Qatar and Saudi Arabia had been shipping military materials via Turkey to the opposition since early and late 2012, respectively, a major hurdle was removed late last fall after the Turkish government agreed to allow the pace of air shipments to accelerate, officials said.
These multiple logistics streams throughout the winter formed what one former American official who was briefed on the program called “a cataract of weaponry.”
American officials, rebel commanders and a Turkish opposition politician have described the Arab roles as an open secret, but have also said the program is freighted with risk, including the possibility of drawing Turkey or Jordan actively into the war and of provoking military action by Iran.
Still, rebel commanders have criticized the shipments as insufficient, saying the quantities of weapons they receive are too small and the types too light to fight Mr. Assad’s military effectively. They also accused those distributing the weapons of being parsimonious or corrupt.
“The outside countries give us weapons and bullets little by little,” said Abdel Rahman Ayachi, a commander in Soquor al-Sham, an Islamist fighting group in northern Syria.
He made a gesture as if switching on and off a tap. “They open and they close the way to the bullets like water,” he said.
Two other commanders, Hassan Aboud of Soquor al-Sham and Abu Ayman of Ahrar al-Sham, another Islamist group, said that whoever was vetting which groups receive the weapons was doing an inadequate job.
“There are fake Free Syrian Army brigades claiming to be revolutionaries, and when they get the weapons they sell them in trade,” Mr. Aboud said.
The former American official noted that the size of the shipments and the degree of distributions are voluminous.
“People hear the amounts flowing in, and it is huge,” he said. “But they burn through a million rounds of ammo in two weeks.”
A Tentative Start
The airlift to Syrian rebels began slowly. On Jan. 3, 2012, months after the crackdown by the Alawite-led government against antigovernment demonstrators had morphed into a military campaign, a pair of Qatar Emiri Air Force C-130 transport aircraft touched down in Istanbul, according to air traffic data.
They were a vanguard.
Weeks later, the Syrian Army besieged Homs, Syria’s third largest city. Artillery and tanks pounded neighborhoods. Ground forces moved in.
Across the country, the army and loyalist militias were trying to stamp out the rebellion with force — further infuriating Syria’s Sunni Arab majority, which was severely outgunned. The rebels called for international help, and more weapons.
By late midspring the first stream of cargo flights from an Arab state began, according to air traffic data and information from plane spotters.
On a string of nights from April 26 through May 4, a Qatari Air Force C-17 — a huge American-made cargo plane — made six landings in Turkey, at Esenboga Airport. By Aug. 8 the Qataris had made 14 more cargo flights. All came from Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, a hub for American military logistics in the Middle East.
Qatar has denied providing any arms to the rebels. A Qatari official, who requested anonymity, said Qatar has shipped in only what he called nonlethal aid. He declined to answer further questions. It is not clear whether Qatar has purchased and supplied the arms alone or is also providing air transportation service for other donors. But American and other Western officials, and rebel commanders, have said Qatar has been an active arms supplier — so much so that the United States became concerned about some of the Islamist groups that Qatar has armed.
The Qatari flights aligned with the tide-turning military campaign by rebel forces in the northern province of Idlib, as their campaign of ambushes, roadside bombs and attacks on isolated outposts began driving Mr. Assad’s military and supporting militias from parts of the countryside.
As flights continued into the summer, the rebels also opened an offensive in that city — a battle that soon bogged down.
The former American official said David H. Petraeus, the C.I.A. director until November, had been instrumental in helping to get this aviation network moving and had prodded various countries to work together on it. Mr. Petraeus did not return multiple e-mails asking for comment.
The American government became involved, the former American official said, in part because there was a sense that other states would arm the rebels anyhow. The C.I.A. role in facilitating the shipments, he said, gave the United States a degree of influence over the process, including trying to steer weapons away from Islamist groups and persuading donors to withhold portable antiaircraft missiles that might be used in future terrorist attacks on civilian aircraft.
American officials have confirmed that senior White House officials were regularly briefed on the shipments. “These countries were going to do it one way or another,” the former official said. “They weren’t asking for a ‘Mother, may I?’ from us. But if we could help them in certain ways, they’d appreciate that.”
Through the fall, the Qatari Air Force cargo fleet became even more busy, running flights almost every other day in October. But the rebels were clamoring for even more weapons, continuing to assert that they lacked the firepower to fight a military armed with tanks, artillery, multiple rocket launchers and aircraft.
Many were also complaining, saying they were hearing from arms donors that the Obama administration was limiting their supplies and blocking the distribution of the antiaircraft and anti-armor weapons they most sought. These complaints continue.
“Arming or not arming, lethal or nonlethal — it all depends on what America says,” said Mohammed Abu Ahmed, who leads a band of anti-Assad fighters in Idlib Province.
The Breakout
Soon, other players joined the airlift: In November, three Royal Jordanian Air Force C-130s landed in Esenboga, in a hint at what would become a stepped-up Jordanian and Saudi role.
Within three weeks, two other Jordanian cargo planes began making a round-trip run between Amman, the capital of Jordan, and Zagreb, the capital of Croatia, where, officials from several countries said, the aircraft were picking up a large Saudi purchase of infantry arms from a Croatian-controlled stockpile.
The first flight returned to Amman on Dec. 15, according to intercepts of a transponder from one of the aircraft recorded by a plane spotter in Cyprus and air traffic control data from an aviation official in the region.
In all, records show that two Jordanian Ilyushins bearing the logo of the Jordanian International Air Cargo firm but flying under Jordanian military call signs made a combined 36 round-trip flights between Amman and Croatia from December through February. The same two planes made five flights between Amman and Turkey this January.
As the Jordanian flights were under way, the Qatari flights continued and the Royal Saudi Air Force began a busy schedule, too — making at least 30 C-130 flights into Esenboga from mid-February to early March this year, according to flight data provided by a regional air traffic control official.
Several of the Saudi flights were spotted coming and going at Ankara by civilians, who alerted opposition politicians in Turkey.
“The use of Turkish airspace at such a critical time, with the conflict in Syria across our borders, and by foreign planes from countries that are known to be central to the conflict, defines Turkey as a party in the conflict,” said Attilla Kart, a member of the Turkish Parliament from the C.H.P. opposition party, who confirmed details about several Saudi shipments. “The government has the responsibility to respond to these claims.”
Turkish and Saudi Arabian officials declined to discuss the flights or any arms transfers. The Turkish government has not officially approved military aid to Syrian rebels.
Croatia and Jordan both denied any role in moving arms to the Syrian rebels. Jordanian aviation officials went so far as to insist that no cargo flights occurred.
The director of cargo for Jordanian International Air Cargo, Muhammad Jubour, insisted on March 7 that his firm had no knowledge of any flights to or from Croatia.
“This is all lies,” he said. “We never did any such thing.”
A regional air traffic official who has been researching the flights confirmed the flight data, and offered an explanation. “Jordanian International Air Cargo,” the official said, “is a front company for Jordan’s air force.”
After being informed of the air-traffic control and transponder data that showed the plane’s routes, Mr. Jubour, from the cargo company, claimed that his firm did not own any Ilyushin cargo planes.
Asked why his employer’s Web site still displayed images of two Ilyushin-76MFs and text claiming they were part of the company fleet, Mr. Jubour had no immediate reply. That night the company’s Web site was taken down.
Reporting was contributed by Robert F. Worth from Washington and Istanbul; Dan Bilefsky from Paris; and Sebnem Arsu from Istanbul and Ankara, Turkey.
A version of this article appeared in print on March 25, 2013, on page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Airlift To Rebels In Syria Expands With C.I.A.’S Help.
Both the United States and Russia have laid out their political stakes when it comes to negotiating with Assad.
Alia Brahimi Last Modified: 04 Mar 2013 16:21
Dr Alia Brahimi is a Visiting Research Fellow at the University of Oxford. She received her doctorate from the University of Oxford in 2007.
Former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton labelled the actions of China and Russia in the UNSC as "despicable" [AFP]
This month marks two years since the onset of large scale anti-government protests in Syria, yet international approaches to the ensuing crisis, which has so far claimed 70,000 lives, are as conflicted as ever.
On one hand, the US appeared, over the last few weeks, to take its foot off the pedal of support for Bashar al-Assad's opponents, prompting a slew of complaints from Syrian rebel groups. At the same time, a delegation from Jordan, a staunch US ally, to Damascus offered President Assad the gift of an "Arabism" abaya - the same delegation to which Assad allegedly confided that he was "not a monster" .. http://www.alraimedia.com/Article.aspx?id=415799&date=20022013 .. [AR]. Despite its Sunni Islamist orientation, the Egyptian government reiterated its opposition to a military solution to the conflict and its support for dialogue.
In other signs that Russia's proposal for negotiations was gaining traction, Moscow played host to King Abdullah of Jordan, President Masoud Barzani of the Kurdistan Regional Government, and Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Mouallem in quick succession, with rumours that Moaz al-Khatib, head of the opposition umbrella group, the Syrian National Coalition, would follow suit. For his part, Mouallem announced that the Syrian regime was ready for talks with the armed opposition. Reports also emerged last week that al-Khatib, who recently conceded that dialogue with the government was a possibility, met with a businessman close to the Assad regime, Mohammed Hamsho.
On the other hand, upon the confirmation of Senator John Kerry as US Secretary of State, this week brought the announcement that the US, along with European partners like Britain and France, plans to step up its support to Syrian opposition fighters. While continuing to shun the (probably illegal) option of directly providing weapons and munitions to the rebels, Kerry committed to supplying direct medical and food rations to rebel fighters, and to doubling US governance aid to the political opposition. As yet, reports that the US will also help to train rebel fighters .. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/28/world/middleeast/us-expands-aid-to-syrian-rebels.html?ref=global-home&_r=0 , have not been confirmed.
UK Foreign Secretary William Hague heralded this ramping up of support to the opposition as a "new phase" in the Western and Arab response to the crisis. Indeed, alongside this more cautious uptick in western support, the Saudis are reported to have financed .. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/26/world/middleeast/in-shift-saudis-are-said-to-arm-rebels-in-syria.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 .. a large consignment of infantry weapons to the rebels, from Croatia via Jordan, which includes anti-tank rockets and recoilless guns. The political opposition will also soon announce the establishment of a transitional government in "liberated lands" in the North of the country.
Syrians dodge danger to survive costly economy
Thus, two incompatible models for ending the crisis are being touted by the US and Russia, with the former seemingly committed to a wholesale rebel victory, and the latter urging compromise, political dialogue and gradual transition. We've been here before. For two years, the conflicting US and Russian narratives and political approaches added an unhelpful layer of global rivalry on top of local, regional and sectarian power struggles.
Since 2011, both the US and Russia have given their full verbal backing to a slew of diplomatic initiatives for ending the violence, including the Arab League proposal, Kofi Annan's six-point plan, and the Geneva agreement, while also underlining their commitment to a peaceful resolution of the crisis. Yet, in reality, these global powers found themselves fiercely divided at the Security Council and ostensibly allied with different "sides" on the ground.
In demanding for Assad to "step aside" in August 2011, President Barack Obama announced a formal US policy of regime change in Syria. The US has since led Western efforts to pressure Assad from power. For Russia, Assad's resignation could not be a precondition for resolving the crisis. Along with Beijing, Moscow was more sanguine about the possibilities for Assad to implement reforms and/or negotiate a way out of the crisis with the opposition, and called instead for a ceasefire and negotiations, followed by a comprehensive national dialogue. But how have the US and Russia justified these different prescriptions for ending the violence in Syria?
Problem-framing
To begin with, Washington and Moscow began their problem-framing from contrasting premises: the violence was largely one-sided, for the US, whereas the violence was taking place on both sides, for Russia.
From the outset, the Obama administration was unequivocal that blame for the violence in Syria lay with the government. Even as the opposition took up arms in June and July of 2012, launching organised assaults against government positions and declaring its intention to bring down the regime militarily .. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZcCbIPM37w&playnext=1&list=PL0A167C2336F6FBC7&feature=results_main , the Americans remained wedded to the position that Assad and in his inner circle bore primary responsibility for the violence.
When, by the end of 2011, the US acknowledged that Syrian security forces had taken casualties, it insisted that the overwhelming majority of the violence stemmed from the regime. Both Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and UN Ambassador Susan Rice were adamant that there could be no moral equivalence between the actions of the opposition and those of the regime. As such, they demanded that the Syrian regime cease violence first.
The Russians, on the other hand, had warned of "destructive opposition forces in Syria" as early as June 2011. As observed by Vitaly Churkin, Russia's ambassador to the UN, Moscow had its own interpretation of events .. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sponsored/russianow/politics/8983272/UN-resolutions-regime-change-Russia-ambassador.html .. in Syria: Yes, there were large peaceful protests in some parts of the country, but there was also violence used against government institutions, and that tendency was increasing as events started unfolding.
Russian officials referred to "the so-called Free Syrian Army", accentuating its attacks on government targets and the operations of armed gangs. At the UN, they opposed draft Security Resolutions and successful General Assembly resolutions for not calling on the opposition to renounce violence, and for being "written as if no armed opposition existed at all".
Assad accuses Britain of escalating conflict
According to the Russians, the opposition's militancy contained two exacerbating features: first, it included terrorist acts and atrocities; second, it was being financed from abroad. Al-Qaeda was repeatedly said to be active in Syria. Car bombs, executions and "terrorist raids" were highlighted in press releases. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov began speaking of the Syrian opposition with a major caveat .. http://english.ruvr.ru/2012_05_23/75743921/ : "if terrorists can be called opposition". The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs slammed US State Department announcements as direct endorsements of terrorism, and suggested that it may refer Saudi Arabia to the UN's counter-terrorism body for its part in arming the Syrian rebels. "Why not unlock Guantanamo, arm its inmates and bring them to Syria to fight," Russian President Vladimir Putin asked .. http://rt.com/news/vladimir-putin-exclusive-interview-481/ . "It's practically the same kind of people."
As such, in contrast to Clinton's argument that the onus was on the (much more powerful) government to first lay down its arms, Lavrov argued that the process of renouncing violence should be mutual. In tension with the Obama administration's rejection of moral equivalence between the two sides, Lavrov demanded that both combatant sides be treated equally .. http://rt.com/news/us-position-syria-terror-lavrov-006/ .
Upholding international law
Both the US and Russia argued that their positions on the Syrian crisis were consistent with international law.
The US maintained, first, that its position was multilateral, supported by much of the international community, the Security Council, the UN General Assembly, the UN Secretary General, the Arab League, the GCC, regional leaders from Turkey to Saudi Arabia, and religious leaders including the head of Al-Azhar.
Second, the international community was said to be rising to its responsibilities. Not only was the regime crackdown characterised as an "ongoing threat to international peace and stability .. http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2011/08/170673.htm ", which entailed action under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, but as with the conflict in Libya, the emerging norm of "responsibility to protect" was alluded to repeatedly. Deploying notable R2P language, Clinton referred to "the horrific campaign of violence that has shocked the conscience of the world .. http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2012/03/185623.htm ". The implications of these crimes were that the Assad regime had forfeited its right to lead the Syrian people and that a strong international response was not only a right, but also a duty.
Third, the Obama administration argued that its position enabled, rather than interfered with, the self-determination of the Syrian people. Assad was said to be standing in the way of Syrians, and the only way to bring about the change that they deserved was for Assad to leave power. Differing with the assessment of Assad's allies (for example a Hezbollah spokesman I interviewed in Beirut in March 2012 argued that "the majority in Syria still supports Bashar"), the Americans asserted that the Assad regime and its friends were at odds with the aspirations of the vast majority of the Syrian people. The regime represented only a family, the Baath Party, a small group of insiders.
By contrast, the Russians argued that they were acting to protect the right of nations to self-determination, an important principle of jus cogens international law. According to Putin, no nation had the right to decide .. http://rt.com/news/putin-g20-syria-assad-252/ .. for another "who should be brought to power and who should be ousted". In addition, Russia was said to be protecting the rights of ("a large proportion of") Syrians who were not supportive of the armed opposition and were instead disposed towards gradual political change.
In invoking the principles of respect for sovereignty and non-intervention in the domestic affairs of states, the Russians pointed out that they had never waged colonial wars in the Arab world, and shunned the (Western) export of "rocket and bomb democracy .. http://rt.com/news/putin-west-influence-bomb-democracy-722/ ". Not only was this policy morally wrong, it wasn't effective either.
The Russians also asserted that they sought to protect both the spirit and the stipulations of the UN Charter. In Lavrov's formulation, at stake was "whether the world will be based on the UN Charter, or a place where might makes right .. http://rt.com/news/lavrov-syria-opposition-military-476/ ". They bemoaned the unilateralism of their colleagues on the Security Council and, despite having opposed and vetoed UN resolutions which were supported by a vast majority of the states eligible to vote, they declared themselves in favour of a truly collective resolution to the conflict in Syria.
Similarly, Russia repeatedly pointed out that the violent regime change sought by member states in Iraq (2003) and Libya (2011) openly violated the UN Security Council's resolutions - as Churkin admitted of the latter case in particular, "we did not take that well .. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sponsored/russianow/politics/8983272/UN-resolutions-regime-change-Russia-ambassador.html ". Indeed, the Russians focused heavily on the legally and politically unacceptable precedent of the NATO intervention in Libya, declaring that they had been effectively deceived before voting was conducted for resolution 1973 which authorised "all necessary measures" to protect Libyan civilians. They had been assured the no-fly zone was designed to safeguard civilian life, and yet it was used as a trigger for regime change instead. The situation in Syria would not be considered, by the Russians (and the Chinese), in isolation from the Libyan experience.
Inside Syria - Making heads or tails of Bashar al-Assad
Ultimately, similar normative principles, and indeed the same international peace proposals, were invoked in furtherance of distinct interpretations of the values underpinning world order. Sovereignty as responsibility competed with sovereignty as ultimate authority. The self-determination of peoples vied with the self-determination of sovereign nations. Unsurprisingly, these differing conceptions aligned neatly with the national interests of their proponents.
Peace-seekers
Despite strong US support for Security Council action on Syria, the Obama administration consistently couched its position in the language of seeking peace. The UN resolutions it tabled were described as a last chance to end Assad's brutality through peaceful means. It was assumed that the violence in Syria would stop when Assad left power.
Still, the Obama administration stopped short of advancing that goal through direct military means. It extended at least $100 million worth of "non-lethal" aid to the Syrian opposition, and US military personnel were dispatched to the border with Jordan. It is also likely that CIA agents were helping to coordinate and direct backchannel arms deliveries from some Gulf States, from Turkish territory bordering Syria, where NATO also defensively stationed six batteries of Patriot Missiles in early 2013.
The US maintained that supporting the opposition in toppling Assad would bring peace to Syria. Removing Assad would also ward off a civil war. However, US support for the Syrian opposition was depicted by its critics as partisan in a dangerous and destabilising way.
The Russians argued that overtly "taking sides" only hastened, rather than averted, civil war. Draft Security Council resolutions were vetoed because they were one-sided. The aim, Moscow insisted, should be to settle the conflict without taking sides. Russia treated all parties with equal respect, and maintained contacts with both sides. Opposing the British and French-sponsored draft Security Council resolution in June 2011, Churkin argued that UN interference would escalate, rather than dampen, local tensions. Demands by Western politicians that Assad step aside could provoke a full-scale conflict in Syria and risked plunging Syria into a bloody civil conflict.
Russia's course was presented as the "the most balanced approach .. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/sergei-lavrov/russia-syria-on-the-right-side-of-history_b_1596400.html .. to the Syrian crisis". Indeed, officials insisted that Russia was not a defender of Damascus nor were its spokesmen advocates for the Assad regime. This assertion was supported by occasional statements indicating support for the non-violent opposition, combined with frank criticism of the regime's excesses.
Opposing hypocrisy
"Thwarted .. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/08/06/press-briefing-press-secretary-jay-carney-862012 ", to use the White House's term, by Russia and China at the Security Council, the US sought to explain its opponents' behaviour and motivations in terms of narrow self-interest. Clinton stated that Russia, China and Iran were determined to keep Assad in power because he does their bidding, he buys their arms, and sells them oil.
Notably emotive language was used to express this frustration. "It's distressing," Clinton explained in February 2012, "to see two permanent members of the Security Council using their veto when people are being murdered." Instigating some controversy, she then labelled their actions "despicable .. http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2012/02/184635.htm ". In using their veto power, Russia and China were also deemed to be denying Kofi Annan the key tools to advance his efforts. That is, rather than blocking foreign military intervention in Syria, Russia and China were actively obstructing international diplomatic efforts to end the crisis. Furthermore, Russia, it was suggested, was continuing "to deliver weapons to Assad .. http://usun.state.gov/briefing/statements/183334.htm ".
But for Moscow, the West's approach to the crisis was steeped in double-standards, chief among which was the insistence that the regime lays down its arms, without demanding the same from the opposition. Putin noted .. http://rt.com/news/sanctions-showdown-syria-libya-383/ .. that NATO's use of force "happens against the background of all the fuss about human rights and humanism... Don't you see a significant contradiction here between theory, the words and deeds, and the practice of international affairs?"
The implicit charge of hypocrisy was also extended to the West's allies in the Gulf. According to Lavrov, prior to the unrest, Syria enjoyed a level of civil freedoms higher than some of the countries that were now preaching democracy to Damascus. Alexei Pushkov, head of the Duma International Affairs Committee, observed that the US was closely working on the Syria file with Qatar and Saudi Arabia, where there was not even the remotest notion .. http://rt.com/news/syria-russia-conflict-policy-606/ .. of what democracy is.
The real intention of the Gulf states, the argument went, was to install Sunni rule in a country governed by a Shia minority. The motivations of the US and NATO countries were also geopolitical. Their support for the Syrian opposition was aimed at a larger geopolitical game targeting Iran.
Unanswered questions
But if the US and its allies were playing politics over Syria, then the Russian position also left a number of unanswered questions.
First, it was not clear how, in the face of brutal repression, the opposition inside Syria could respond to the authorities' invitation for dialogue. Given the ferocity of the government's attacks, and its widely documented torture and execution of opposition members, in such a scenario, the regime would hold most, if not all, of the cards. For the opposition, agreeing to a ceasefire and negotiations with a regime which had previously exercised bad faith appeared too risky, if not suicidal, an option, particularly before it had taken large territories in the North. Moscow failed to address that reality and, even as the Syrian government employed shocking levels of violence in civilian areas, it clung instead to a vague proposal for "dialogue".
A potentially more sinister tension in the Russian position arose from its depiction of itself as a neutral broker, condemning hypocritical regional and international actors for sending arms to the Syrian opposition, despite the fact that the Syrian government was the largest Middle Eastern importer of Russian weapons, and Moscow continued to sign arms contracts with Damascus during the crisis. Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov declared that it would be wrong to leave the Syrian government without the means for self-defence .. http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2012/Jun-13/176705-russia-defends-syria-arms-sales-after-us-claims.ashx#axzz2MIiHXYH9 . If valid, there is no reason why this argument could not also be used by the Gulf States, Turkey or the US with regard to the opposition.
Finally, even if it is assumed that Russia supplied no offensive arms, it is worth reflecting on whether failing to act in Syria, or failing to allow others to act (through the Security Council) is politically (and morally) neutral in a way that acting is not. Could an act of omission be as partisan as one of commission? Perhaps, by doing nothing, Russia was actively supporting the status quo and thus the regime in its actions.
However, one merit of the Russian position, whatever its incentives, was that it raised important concerns about the aftermath of a disorderly collapse of the Assad regime, which is what the opposition's regional and international supporters appeared to be aiming for.
Indeed, the US had forged a betwixt and between policy on Syria. The stakes were dramatically raised with Obama's August 2011 announcement that Assad must "step aside". At the same time, however, the US was not prepared to act decisively to effect Assad's removal from power. The demand was issued, but, in the event, with no credible ultimatum.
A policy of sanctions was in place - certainly not a short-term solution, given that Assad's friends in Tehran would still afford him access to cash, arms and fuel, via Baghdad - but the onslaught intensified. Fielding desperate telephone calls from the Free Syrian Army during our conversation, a Washington-based activist complained in July 2012 that "Obama said that Assad has to step aside, but all he's done is sanctions, which only hurt the Syrian people... The Americans haven't done anything, apart from sending 17 smart phones". The US administration appeared caught in the middle of its mixed support to the opposition, where bullish rhetoric clashed with more bearish action.
Retired US Ambassador Daniel Serwer suggested to me that that "the administration is split on this... Clinton and Rice are trying to embarrass their colleagues into doing more, but it's not working because Obama does not want to 'own' Syria".
So far, the US has supported the opposition and its eager regional allies enough to encourage their violent challenge to the Assad regime, but not sufficiently to ensure the regime's collapse. For their part, the Russians' insistence on dialogue with the Assad regime, whose large-scale human rights abuses did not indicate any appetite for compromise, seemed to translate into support for the violent status quo.
Confused policies
Alongside this clash between the narratives and policies of the US and Russia, there has been a discernible gulf between each power's discourse and their actions. The US, the strongest military power in the world, did not use all the levers at its disposal to oust Assad from power, a cause which its own officials had so eloquently championed. At the same time, despite professions of neutrality, Russia's tireless quest to stymie Security Council action and promote a "Syrian-led dialogue", translated on the ground to tacit support for the regime, in terms of its continued dominance of the Syrian political sphere as well as its crackdown. While the US and Russia cannot be said to directly determine the dynamics of the Syrian conflict, this reality has added to the dangerous mix of categorical principles and confused policies that has characterised the international response to the Syrian crisis.
Now, after a few cautious weeks in which the US second-guessed the wisdom of backing an outright rebel military victory, and Russia seemed to concede the meaningful political transition, rather than a superficial "dialogue" led by Assad, was the only way out of the crisis, the international community appears to have split once more. This polarisation does not bode well for the aim of ending the violence, nor for the desperate situation of the families of the 70,000 dead, the close to one million refugees and the more than two million internally displaced.
Oddly, it was Hillary Clinton herself who made a clear-eyed case against military support for the opposition, when she argued in February 2012 that nobody wants a bloody, protracted civil war, that even with automatic weapons in the hands of the rebels, the slaughter would go on, and that there was a real danger that such weapons would fall into the hands of US enemies.
Perhaps the US now fears that the radical Islamist flag is rising in Syria, with or without US intervention. Thus, the attempt to shore up more democratically inclined/"US-friendly" fighters is as much aimed at ensuring that US interests are secured in a proxy war, as it is at toppling Assad. This, more than anything, represents a firm acknowledgement that the future of Syria will be settled on the battlefield. Assad's allies in Iran, unencumbered by legal restrictions and political qualms about arming foreign military groups, are sure to match every first aid kit and tin of food dispatched by the State Department, and then some. With recent developments, then, the tragic fate of the Syrian people as hostages in a proxy war appears unchanged.
Dr Alia Brahimi is a Research Fellow at the London School of Economics. She received her doctorate from the University of Oxford.
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.
.. within chat of Assad surviving, i saw this which doesn't seem to have gained much mileage in mainstream western press ..
Members of Syrian Alawite sect held a meeting in Cairo to announce their support for for the opposition for the first time since the uprising against Assad regime started in 2011
AFP , Sunday 24 Mar 2013
Members of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's own Alawite sect gathered in Cairo on Sunday to announce their support for his overthrow in an unprecedented gathering.
The Alawites, joined by other minority representatives, said they wanted to disassociate their sect from Assad's brutal crackdown on the rebellion in which an estimated 70,000 people have been killed.
"As we slide towards a sectarian conflict, we must all raise our voices," said one of the organisers, Ali Daioub.
The rebellion has taken on an increasingly sectarian tone, pitting a Sunni Muslim-led rebellion against Assad, who comes from the minority Alawite sect.
"This revolution is for all Syrians," said Bassem al-Yousef, another organiser of the conference held in a Cairo hotel.
"Our goal must be to dismantle the entire regime," he told the gathering.
"I think most Alawites hate the Assad family. But the Alawites have a fear, planted by the Assads, of what comes next," Yousef told AFP.
Participants who spoke to AFP said they hoped Syrian opposition leaders would recognise Alawites as potential comrades rather than diehard Assad loyalists.
Fearing stark future, Syrian Alawites meet in Cairo
By Khaled Yacoub Oweis AMMAN | Sat Mar 23, 2013 8:24am EDT
(Reuters) - Followers of the religion of Bashar al-Assad who oppose the Syrian president met in Cairo on Saturday to support a democratic alternative to his rule, seeking to untangle his fate from their own.
In the first meeting of its kind by Alawites who support the revolt, delegates aimed to draft a declaration supporting a united Syria and to invite other opposition groups to cooperate on preventing sectarian bloodletting if Assad falls.
"We are inviting all of the opposition to confront the sectarian problem being ignited by the regime. The last card the regime can now play is civil war and the partition of Syria," said veteran opposition campaigner Bassam al-Youssef, an Alawite who spent more than a decade in jail under the iron rule of Assad's father, the late President Hafez al-Assad.
As the war takes on an increasingly sectarian bent, distancing the Alawites from Assad could be crucial for the survival of the community, an offshoot of Shi'ite Islam that makes up about 10 percent of Syria's population.
"The meeting is happening almost two years late," a Western diplomat said.
"But it will help disassociate the sect from Assad. Every effort is needed now to prevent a wide-scale sectarian bloodbath when Assad eventually goes, in which the Alawites would be the main losers."
At least 70,000 people have been killed since a protest movement led by Syria's Sunni Muslim majority broke out against four decades of family rule by Assad and his father.
The demonstrations were met by bullets, sparking a Sunni backlash and a mostly Islamist armed insurgency that is leading some Alawites to fear they have no future without Assad.
Assad has said he is fighting a foreign-backed conspiracy to divide Syria and that the rebel forces are Islamist "terrorists."
A statement by the organizing committee of the Alawite conference said: "The regime, which is becoming more isolated and weak, is working on turning sectarian zealotry into bloodshed. There are anti-regime forces also pushing toward sectarian warfare."
"Depriving the regime of the sectarian card is crucial for its ouster and for negotiating a Syrian national covenant on the basis of a modern statehood and equal citizenship and justice," it said.
Alawites were prominent in a leftist Syrian political movement that was crushed by Assad's father in the 1970s and 1980s, along with Islamist opposition.
Ten Alawite activists from inside Syria who were on their way to join the two-day conference were prevented from travelling, but seven others managed to attend the 100-delegate meeting, Youssef said.
DEMOCRATIC ASPIRATIONS
Among prominent Alawites currently in jail is free-speech advocate Mazen Darwish, who worked on documenting the victims of the crackdown against the revolt, and Abdelaziz al-Khayyer, a centrist politician who advocated peaceful transition to democratic rule.
Issam al-Youssef, another activist who is helping organize the conference, said the uprising had given the Alawites a chance to show the sect was not monolithic, and that it aspired like the rest of the population to live under a multi-party democracy, while fearing the rise of Islamist extremism.
Youssef recalled taking part in a pro-democracy demonstration at the beginning of the uprising in the Sunni district of al-Khalidiya in the central city of Homs when the protesters came under attack by a pro-Assad militia.
"A group of us took refuge in a house, and the house owner, who did not know I was Alawite, began cursing Alawites. When my comrades told him I was one, he came to me and gave me the keys to his house."
"We are in a sectarian crisis and the political forces of the opposition are falling into a serious error by not discussing it," Youssef said.
He said the document that would emerge from the conference "will affirm Alawite commitment to national unity and inter-communal existence and civic peace," mirroring a stance the sect's leaders took during French colonial rule in the 1920s in opposition to proposals for partition of the country.
"There is an Islamist current that is expanding at the expense of the democratic civic current, which needs to unite," Youssef said. "We as Alawites are Syrians first. We are trying to be part of a real change."
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
