UN Security Council has no authority to support revolution in Syria – Lavrov

Russia Today

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov

The UN Security Council has no right to support a revolution or foreign intervention in Syria, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov warned. Any plan to withdraw government troops while fighting continues is untenable, and naïve at best, he added.

The demand for President Bashar al-Assad to resign as a precondition to resolving the Syrian crisis is a completely unrealistic approach, Lavrov said during a public appearance at the Moscow State University of Foreign Affairs.

“There are different attitudes towards the Syrian regime. But while fighting in the streets continues, it is absolutely unrealistic to say that the only way out is for one side to unilaterally capitulate. It is not a matter of ideology, we don’t support any political figures in Syria. We just reason from what is realistic,” Lavrov said to the students of the diplomatic university.

Harking back to the summit in Geneva in June, Lavrov noted that despite differing opinions on the conflict, all the participating countries agreed to work for a “free, stable, independent and democratic” Syria. However, “our western partners and some nations in the region are almost openly pushing for outside intervention,” said Lavrov.

“Outside intervention should be positive. Every international player should push for both sides of the Syrian conflict to cease violence,” stressed Lavrov. “Saying that the government should be the first to pull out its troops from towns and then the opposition is not a viable plan.”
The Russian foreign minister added that those foreign players who insist on inciting the opposition forces “are not working in the interests of the Syrian people. They are motivated by their own geopolitical interests.”

Lavrov cited the fact the Security Council dismissed a vote on the Geneva accord as evidence that a number of countries were not working for the Syrian people.
Ecuador, Assange’s rights must be respected WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s rights as a political refugee must be respected, Lavrov said, adding that under international law, it would be illegal for UK police to storm the Ecuadorian embassy.

“As long as he is inside Ecuadorian territory, I think no one will try any rash actions, and the rights of the refugee [Assange] must be respected. No one can challenge the judicial process. But when the Ecuadorian embassy is threatened with being stormed, just like the Winter Palace was, I think it’s a little outside the rule of law,” Lavrov said in his talk to the students, alluding to the Bolshevik storming of the Winter Palace during Russia's 1917 revolution.
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has been holed up inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London since June. The whistleblower is currently in the center of an international stalemate insofar as Ecuador has granted him asylum but the UK has pledged to arrest him if he sets foot outside the building.

Assange estimates that he could potentially get out of the Ecuadorian embassy in a year’s time if Sweden drops the extradition order against him. The 41-year-old Australian is wanted for questioning over charges of sexual assault and rape in Sweden.

Assange has said that if Sweden drops the extradition order against him he could potentially leave the embassy in a year’s time. The 41-year-old Australian is wanted for questioning over charges of sexual assault and rape in Sweden.

Commenting on the WikLeaks whistleblowing scandal that precipitated Assange’s asylum request, Lavrov said that the information in the WikiLeaks cables “brought to light how governments relate to their partners, and what they think of them.” The document dump hadn’t harmed or threatened the safety of any particular government, he said.

“It was curious,” Lavrov said. “But nothing more. Many of our impressions were simply confirmed.”

Scenarios for Syria: War and Stabilization

Global Research
Nile Bowie

Diplomatic attempts to solve the Syrian crisis have been rejected by both members of the Syrian government and the opposition. As Ankara laments bold rhetoric and militarizes its border with Syria, this article attempts to foresee three possible outcomes to the ongoing crisis.

From the start of the crisis in Syria, the possibility of open foreign military intervention has loomed uncomfortably over the series of diplomatic measures taken in an attempt to diffuse the situation. While earlier attempts to implement the Peace Plan have failed to materialize, Kofi Annan has proposed a new Syrian solution, mandating the creation of a transitional national unity government consisting of both representatives of Assad’s administration and members of the opposition, insinuating that Assad would not have a place in the new government [1]. Although Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov would categorically oppose the idea of foreign powers dictating the future of Syria, stating, “We will not support and cannot support any meddling from outside or any imposition of recipes. This also concerns the fate of the president of the country, Bashar al-Assad,” a recent meeting of the "Syrian Action Group" (excluding Riyadh, Tehran and Damascus) in Geneva saw world powers agree to a basic roadmap for a Syrian-led power transition.


On June 28, 2012, two large bomb explosions targeting a government building rocked Damascus, prompting President Assad to reassert the Syrian government’s duty to “annihilate terrorists in any corner of the country,” adding, “We will not accept any non-Syrian, non-national model, whether it comes from big countries or friendly countries. No one knows how to solve Syria’s problems as well as we do” [2]. In response to the meeting, both Syrian state media and opposition groups condemned the UN-brokered peace plan for the formation of a unity government, amid ceaseless violence across the country. Burhan Ghalioun, a senior member and former head of the opposition Syrian National Council, offered, "this is the worst international statement yet to emerge from talks on Syria". Ghalioun would call the UN-backed transitional plan a "mockery," insinuating that Syrians should not have to negotiate with "their executioner, who has not stopped killing, torturing... and raping women for 16 months" [3].

From the imposition of the ceasefire, the Syrian government would claim that rebel fighters regularly ignored the Kofi Annan Peace Plan by committing various ceasefire violations, employing the use of bombing, kidnapping, murder, and arson as corroborated by Reuters in their article, “Outgunned Syria rebels make shift to bombs,” confirming that rebels had adopted tactics of suicide bombing, car bombing and the use of roadside explosions [4]. While outside elements provided arms and assistance to the militant Syrian opposition in full violation of the proposed ceasefire, the mainstream media would disproportionately lay the blame on the Syrian government for failing to meet its obligations as it attempted to restore order. On June 21, 2012, The New York Times would confirm what alternative media outlets and numerous geopolitical analysts had been reporting since the first months of the uprising in 2011, that outside forces, including the American CIA, were supplying Syria’s rebels with weapons and material assistance from Southern Turkey. In their article, “C.I.A. Said to Aid in Steering Arms to Syrian Opposition,” the New York Times would state:

    “A small number of C.I.A. officers are operating secretly in southern Turkey, helping allies decide which Syrian opposition fighters across the border will receive arms to fight the Syrian government, according to American officials and Arab intelligence officers. The weapons, including automatic rifles, rocket-propelled grenades, ammunition and some antitank weapons, are being funneled mostly across the Turkish border by way of a shadowy network of intermediaries including Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood and paid for by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the officials said. The C.I.A. officers have been in southern Turkey for several weeks, in part to help keep weapons out of the hands of fighters allied with Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups, one senior American official said. The Obama administration has said it is not providing arms to the rebels, but it has also acknowledged that Syria’s neighbors would do so. 

    By helping to vet rebel groups, American intelligence operatives in Turkey hope to learn more about a growing, changing opposition network inside of Syria and to establish new ties. ‘C.I.A. officers are there and they are trying to make new sources and recruit people,’ said one Arab intelligence official who is briefed regularly by American counterparts. American officials and retired C.I.A. officials said the administration was also weighing additional assistance to rebels, like providing satellite imagery and other detailed intelligence on Syrian troop locations and movements. The administration is also considering whether to help the opposition set up a rudimentary intelligence service. But no decisions have been made on those measures or even more aggressive steps, like sending C.I.A. officers into Syria itself, they said” [5].

Undeniably, this confirms that the West, led by the US and its Gulf State proxies, has been undermining the Kofi Annan Peace Plan by arming insurgent fighters, particularly those of the Muslim Brotherhood, while concurrently berating the Syrian government for “violating” a UN mandated cease-fire and for “failing to protect” its population. The implications of these mainstream admissions of state sponsored terrorism and illicit arms smuggling cast shadows of doubt over any serious implementation of the Kofi Annan Peace Plan coming to fruition. The Brookings Institution, a US think-tank noted for its influence on American foreign policy, would release a publication in March 2012 titled, “Saving Syria: Assessing Options for Regime Change,” which called for using the UN-brokered ceasefire and the Kofi Annan Peace Plan to rearm the militant opposition to secure the toppling of the Syrian government in a bid to further Washington’s geopolitical objectives in the region [6]. Additionally, TIME Magazine’s June 25, 2012 article “A War on Two Fronts,” would describe how the US State Department budgeted over $72 million to train armed Syrian dissidents in encryption, hacking, and video production:

    “Washington has said it will not actively support the Syrian opposition in its bid to oust Assad. Officially, the U.S. says it abides by the U.N process led by Kofi Annan and does not condone arms sales to opposition groups as long as there are U.N. Observers in Syria. Nevertheless, as U.S. officials have revealed to TIME, the Obama Administration has been providing media-technology training and support to Syrian dissidents by way of small nonprofits like the Institute for War & Peace Reporting and Freedom House. Viral videos of alleged atrocities, like the footage Abu Ghassan produced, have made Assad one of the most reviled men on the planet, helping turn the Arab League against him and embarrassing his few remaining allies almost daily. ‘If the [U.S.] government is involved in Syria, the government isn’t going to take direct responsibility for it,’ says Lawrence Lessig, director of Harvard’s Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics. ‘The tools that you deploy in Internet freedom interfere with tools deployed by an existing government, and that can be perceived as an act of aggression.’

Washington wants regime change and won't tolerate peaceful resolution

Freedom's Phoenix
Stephen Lendman

Washington-backed so-called "Friends" won't tolerate resolving Syrian violence peacefully. How can they when America, rogue NATO partners, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and other regional despots incited it, fund it, arm it, and continue it.

The name of the game is regime change, not peace. Former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan and current UN head Ban Ki-moon are active players.

Annan's sham peace plan is cover to mask it. Both support imperial dominance. For a decade as Secretary-General, Annan violated his own charter mandate.

Global wars raged throughout his tenure. He did nothing to stop them. He served imperial aggressors, not victims.

His successor Ban's no different. Like Annan, his record reflects failure and betrayal. He's complicit in Western war crimes. So was Annan. Ban picked up on Syria where he left off after leaving office on December 31, 2006.

He didn't miss a beat. He and Annan are part of the problem, not the solution. Since January 1, 2007, he's been a reliable imperial tool. He supported NATO and killer gangs in Libya. He ignored grievous crimes of war and against humanity. He blames Assad for Western generated violence in Syria.

On April 6, he did again. A UN statement in his name said:

"The Secretary-General strongly condemns the latest escalation of violence. He deplores the assault by the Syrian authorities against innocent civilians, including women and children, despite the commitments by the Government of Syria to cease all use of heavy weapons in population centres."

"The 10 April timeline to fulfill the Government's implementation of its commitments, as endorsed by the Security Council, is not an excuse for continued killing."

ABC Reports Russian Troops Have Arrived In Syria, Russia Denies

Zero Hedge
Tyler Durdan

Earlier today, Al Arabiya made waves in the energy market following reports that a Russian ship carrying special forces had arrived in the Syrian port of Tartus, previously demonstrated here to be a key strategic asset in the Mediterranean. This news was promptly denied by RIA, which said that "there were no Russian military ships off Syria coast" and that the Iman ship is a tanker which is merely conducting resource support functions. Furthermore, according to the Russian Ministry of Defense, the crew of Iman consists solely of "civilian personnel, which is being guarded." That may or may not be the case, but has not stopped ABC from blasting, minutes ago, a headline that "Russian anti-terror troops arrive in Syria" a development that a "United Nations Security Council source told ABC News was "a bomb" certain to have serious repercussions." Which begs the question: is everyone now dead set on having war in Syria, and by proxy, Iran?
From ABC:

Russia, one of President Bashar al-Assad's strongest allies despite international condemnation of the government's violent crackdown on the country's uprising, has repeatedly blocked the United Nations Security Council's attempts to halt the violence, accusing the U.S. and its allies of trying to start another war.

Now the Russian Black Sea fleet's Iman tanker has arrived in the Syrian port of Tartus on the Mediterranean Sea with an anti-terror squad from the Russian Marines aboard according to the Interfax news agency. The Assad government has insisted it is fighting a terrorist insurgency.

The Iman replaced another Russian ship "which had been sent to Syria for demonstrating (sic) the Russian presence in the turbulent region and possible evacuation of Russian citizens," the Black Sea Fleet told Interfax.

Here is where ABC's report gets a little screwy:

RIA Novosti, a news outlet with strong ties to the Kremlin, trumpeted the news in a banner headline that appeared only on its Arabic language website. The Russian embassy to the U.S. and to the U.N. had no comment, saying they have "no particular information on" the arrival of a Russian anti-terrorism squad to Syria.

'NATO starving civilians in Libya'

Press TV

Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov says the military conflict in Libya has reached a stalemate, and the human cost of the war in the troubled North African country is getting "high."

Lavrov also said there can be "no fast solution" to the NATO campaign in Libya.

Press TV talks with Dr. Webster Griffin Tarpley, an author and historian in Washington, about the recent developments in crisis-hit Libya.

Press TV: I would like to know if you would agree with the stance that was put forward there by the Russian foreign minister that there is no end in sight to this war and that NATO bombings have to stop because they are causing a lot of civilian casualties.

Tarpley: I would certainly agree that the NATO bombings are causing a tremendous humanitarian emergency and they have caused the death of many civilians. I've just gotten back myself from about two weeks in Tripoli and I personally visited a number of sites that were bombed out, including the country's ruler Muammar Gaddafi compound where three of his grandchildren and one of his sons were killed and also the home of General... about 70 kilometers west of Tripoli, in a locality called Sorman where four very young children, a young mother, an aunt, a Sudanese cook and his wife, a total of ten civilian victims just in that site. So if you multiply that by the large number of sites you get a large number of civilian victims.

There were also constant reports, during my time in Tripoli, that there were bombings, they said that NATO was attacking food storage depots, they attacked a meat locker. Another thing that is in clear violation of UN resolution is that the NATO forces, including US predator drones, had set up a kind of blockade along the seacoast which has nothing to do with the no-fly zone and they are using this to try to prevent Libyan fishermen from going out into Mediterranean and bringing back fish so they are actually trying to starve the civilian population far from trying to protect them. So this is simply a cruel joke, it is a bogus sham.

Press TV: We are hearing that the revolutionaries are gradually gaining some grounds and they are nearing Tripoli. Some would argue that the NATO airstrikes have been helping them achieve their goals. Speaking of what the NATO bombings have so far achieved, do you think there has been a lack of transparency of what the NATO strategy is in Libya because people have been saying, “Is NATO is actually directly targeting Gaddafi himself? Why hasn't it been able to target Gaddafi up until now?” You also referred to the civilian casualties and on top of that the concerns that it could become a prolonged war with troops getting on the ground as well.

Tarpley: The only policy that NATO has is murder, political assassination, it is a level of barbarism which I don't know whether we have seen in the past several hundreds of years, you have to go back pretty far and dig pretty deep to get something as barbaric and primitive as the NATO policies. It was to attack the main Gaddafi compounds in Tripoli or to attack certain outlying or suburban villas that he used to live in and then to also attack the homes of people the ....family, this is a general that was part of the seizure of the power in the 1969 and remained a very important councilor, so in order to attack his home and kill his family they defined his house as a military site.

I personally visited that site, delved into every corner that I could, probably getting exposed to depleted uranium in the process because that is undoubtedly coming down.

I don't see any defense for that it is the sign of political bankruptcy of NATO. The rebels, without NATO bombings, without money, without weapons, without diplomatic support and media support, this rebellion would have ended a long time ago. Anybody who is concerned about humanitarianism would simply say, “Pull out the NATO bombers and let this rebellion collapse these of its own dead weight.”

In terms of the stalemate, I would just say Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said there is a military stalemate, that might be well the case. I don't see any big gains for the rebels; I think these are manic reports that are repeated by the Aljazeera and other highly unreliable media sources.

But in terms of the political side, I actually see an attrition of the attacking of the coalition. if you look at the fact that Norway has dropped out, that is about ten percent of the raids right there, I believe here in the US we have enough votes in the House of Representatives, if we have got a clean bill that would simply say no more money, no more bombing, I think that would pass by a wide margin and I think that would set up a confrontation between President Obama and the House of Representatives, those confrontations sometimes end in impeachment as we have seen in the recent past. We have also got a lot of Republican presidential candidates talking about the fact that the Benghazi rebels are in fact al-Qaeda terrorists.

I got a chance to look at it in Italy and I think they are the Northern League, a right-wing part of the Berlusconi coalition is very unhappy with the war. It maybe Berlusconi would have to drop out of the war in Italy and the Italian bases in order to prevent the Northern League from breaking up that coalition, so I think the political side of the attack on the coalition is very week.

No UN mandate to attack Gaddafi forces: Russia

Rueters
By Steve Gutterman

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia said on Monday attacks on forces loyal to Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi amounted to intervention in a civil war and were not backed by the

Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov

U.N. resolution authorising no-fly zones.

In the latest Russian criticism of military action by the Western-led coalition, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said the resolution passed by the U.N. Security Council on March 17 had the sole aim of protecting Libyan civilians.

"And yet there are reports -- and nobody denies them -- of coalition strikes on columns of Gaddafi's forces, reports about support for actions by the armed insurgents," Lavrov said. "There are clear contradictions here."

"We consider that intervention by the coalition in what is essentially an internal civil war is not sanctioned by the U.N. Security Council resolution," Lavrov said when asked about Libya at a news conference with the Kyrgyz foreign minister.

Russia has veto power as a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council but chose not to block the resolution, which authorised "all necessary measures to enforce compliance" with no-fly zones.

However, Russian leaders have expressed concern that the resolution gave coalition forces too much leeway and the intervention was causing civilian deaths. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin compared the resolution to "medieval calls for crusades".

Lavrov did not say whether Russia would make any effort to restrict operations by the coalition, which is now led by NATO.

In Paris, a French Foreign Ministry spokesman said "the coalition of participating countries is strictly complying with the terms" of the resolution and the U.N. secretary-general was regularly informed of the measures being taken.

Lavrov's remarks, hours before U.S. President Barack Obama was expected to define the mission's purpose and scope in an address, suggested Russia could step up criticism if the coalition took steps Moscow believed went further beyond its mandate.

In Libya, rebels emboldened by Western-led air strikes against Gaddafi's forces pushed west along the Mediterranean coast to retake a series of towns.

Obama's administration has praised Russia for allowing the resolution to go through but has clashed with the Kremlin over the subject of civilian casualties.

In Moscow last week, U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates said some Russians seemed to take what he termed Gaddafi's "lies" about civilian casualties at face value.

Lavrov reiterated Russia's concern about reports of civilian casualties, which he said had not yet been confirmed, and indicated Russia wanted U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's special envoy Abdelilah Al-Khatib to look into them.

Lavrov said Russia's concerns about the broad authority granted to foreign powers enforcing the no-fly zone were among the reasons it abstained in the Security Council vote.