Report Cites US as Example of World’s Failing Democracies

Progressive Radio Network

An international commission led by former UN chief Kofi Annan warns that the world’s democracies, and the United States specifically, are being corrupted by the increasingly strong role of “uncontrolled, undisclosed, illegal and opaque” financing of political campaigns.

The report by the commission, staffed with former world leaders and Nobel prize laureates, stipulated that powerful financial institutions and the surging influence of money in politics was harmful to both emerging and more developed democracies across the globe. “The rise uncontrolled political finance,” warned the report, “threatens to hollow out democracy everywhere and rob democracy of its unique strengths”.

The Global Commission on Elections, Democracy and Security is presenting its finding today in London.

Regarding elections in the US, the commission’s report, Deepening Democracy: a Strategy for Improving the Integrity of Elections Worldwide, took special issue with the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Citizens United case.

Citizens United has “undermined political equality, weakened transparency of the electoral process and shaken citizen confidence in America’s political institutions and elections”, the report said.

According to the Guardian, the report criticizes individual states “which have sought to introduce voter identification laws and other measures that have the effect of suppressing African American participation in the political process.”

America’s Takeover of the United Nations

Global Research
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

Jeffrey Feltman and Ban Ki-Moon

The calls at the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) summit in Tehran for reforming the United Nations and democratizing the Security Council were not exactly new. These calls for UN reform were embodied by the conference’s dictum of “lasting peace through joint global governance.” These demands have been made over and over again by various countries and groups throughout the years.

Nor was everyone present at the NAM gala in Tehran a friend of Iran or open to the Iranian proposals for reforming the United Nations. The visibly shaken Jeffrey Feltman, who was uncomfortably sitting with Iranian officials in Tehran alongside his new boss Ban Ki-moon, can testify to all this. Feltman is a clear symbol of how contaminated the United Nations has become by the imperialist interests of Washington.

The manipulation of the United Nations for imperialist interests, however, goes back a long way. From its inception, the United Nations was meant to facilitate the global influence of the US after the Second World War. The idea of the United Nations, which gets its name from the military coalition (called the United Nations) of the Allied countries that was formed against Germany and the Axis countries, was based on an agreement drafted by the US and the UK during the Second World War. This agreement, the Atlantic Charter, was written out while the US was officially neutral, but secretly supported the British war effort against Germany and its Axis allies by sending supplies to Britain through Canada. The US would later use the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in Hawaii as a justification for entering the war and getting the other Allies to accept the Anglo-American Atlantic Charter during the war and then at the San Francisco Conference in 1945.

The United Nations Security Council

The membership of the UN grew from fifty-one to a hundred and fifty-nine members between 1945 and 1985, with most of the new member countries being former colonies. The UN was used as a tool to control most these former Western European and American colonies of the Third World. At first the US and its post-war allies maintained their domination over the newly formed UN and the former colonies through their numbers and then through a Western Bloc monopoly over the structures of the United Nations. Hereto this monopoly includes control over the agencies and permanent veto-wielding chairs of the fifteen-member Security Council of the United Nations.

The Security Council above all has been used by the US as a means of protecting its interests. The purpose of the Security Council veto is to reject any international resolutions and consensuses against the national interests (or more precisely the interests of the ruling elites) of the US and the other major post-World War II powers. Except for the rival Soviet Union, the US originally controlled or heavily influenced the other three permanent veto-wielding members of the UN Security Council. Britain and the US were essentially confederated and had integrated in 1941 with one another through the Anglo-American Atlantic Charter. France, as a declining power like the UK, was heavily dependent on the United States. The Chinese seat was also originally held by the Kuomintang (Chinese Nationalist Party) which was a US client.

US General Albert C. Wedemeyer was the chief of staff to Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, the leader of Kuomintang-ruled China before Kai-shek fled to Taiwan after the Communist Party of China took over the mainland. The US even envisioned a role for the Kuomintang in governing the former French colonies of Indo-China. Only in 1971 would Washington lose control over the Chinese seat at the UN Security Council when the People’s Republic of China was recognized as the legitimate representative of the Chinese people by the majority of the UN General Assembly and therefore handed over Taiwan’s permanent seat at the UN Security Council.

While the Soviet Union originally made the most vetoes at the UN Security Council, the situation began to change towards the second half of the Cold War and in the post-Cold War era when the US began to take the lead in making vetoes. Ironically, the US and its allies are saying that the international system is failing now due to the double vetoes of China and Russia preventing foreign intervention in Syria. No similar complaints have been made about the numerous vetoes cast by Washington in support of Israel.

Eventually the UN Security Council went beyond the function of protecting US interests after the collapse of the Soviet Union. It became a tool for projecting US interests globally as Washington began to push for unipolar post-Cold War hegemony. The Chinese and Russian double vetoes signal an end to both Pax Americana and the use of the UN Security Council to project US power.

The Secretariat of the United Nations

Besides the United Nations Security Council, the Secretariat of the United Nations has been predominately under the control of the US and its allies. At first this took place because the US and the Western Bloc had numerical superiority at the United Nations. Thus, the first two secretaries-general of the UN were from the Western European kingdoms of Norway, and Sweden. Prior to this Baron Hubert Gladwyn from the United Kingdom was the acting secretary-general of the UN. Swedish diplomat Dag Hammarskjold would visibly serve US and Western Bloc interests to the point that the Soviets and others would demand he be removed from the UN Secretariat.

As the Western Bloc began to lose its numerical advantage, control over the Secretariat would be maintained through the Security Council. The UN Security Council does this by filtering all the candidates for the top UN post in the Secretariat. Secretaries-general of the UN are appointed by the UN General Assembly based on the recommendation of the UN Security Council. Thus, the US and other permanent members of the Security Council have vetoes that can eliminate any candidates that would be hostile to their interests.

Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev’s condemnations about the Secretariat of the United Nations, which helped remove nationalist leaders from power across Africa and the Third World, have a resonating truth to them. After a long streak of secretaries-general that were predominately favorable to the Western Bloc, the Non-Aligned Movement would push a NAM candidate into the UN Secretariat. The NAM’s position is the basis for the elevation of Egyptian diplomat Boutros Boutros-Ghali’s to the post of UN secretary-general in 1992.

Bourtos-Ghali was the closest thing to the last independent secretary-general of the United Nations. The world, however, rapidly changed since the end of the Cold War and Washington expected a far greater degree of subservience from the Secretariat of the UN. After the Cold War UN secretaries-general were expected to act as loyal US stewards. This would start with the Ghanaian UN career bureaucrat Kofi Annan.

Kofi Annan: An Enabler of “Responsibility to Protect”

To his credit Annan is a shrewd diplomatic figure that knows how to sit on the fence, but he has cunningly served the US while appearing circumvent. Aside from the public reports about the involvement of Annan and his son Kojo in the UN’s Iraq oil-for-food scandal, the former secretary-general has a history of legitimizing US interventionism and the occupation of other UN members. Career US diplomat Richard Holbrooke, who was one of the central figures involved in the balkanization of Yugoslavia, praised Annan as one of the most supportive figures for Washington’s foreign policy in the Balkans. This is why Boutros Boutros-Ghali was pushed aside from the secretary-generalship of the UN by Washington’s veto to make way for Annan.

"Orwellian Ramifications" Begin to Unfold in Syria

Global Research
Ismail Salami

There is speculation that the Western supported insurgents in Syria may have seized hold of chemical weapons.

Apart from the unthinkable havoc the rebels can wreak in Syria and in the region with WMDs in their possession, the rhetorical question which remains is how these weapons of mass destruction have fallen into the hands of the insurgents who are chiefly composed of Wahhabi al-Qaeda mercenaries of different nationalities including Afghans, Iraqis, Turkish, Yemenis, Jordanians, Pakistanis, and Saudis.

The situation in Syria is assuming Orwellian ramifications and the possibility to clearly understand or dissect the situation in the country is not an easy task.

In addition to the active role the Saudi-backed Wahhabis, CIA and some western intelligence organizations are playing in Syria, there is one entity, namely Israel which is stealthily espying every single development in Syria.

For the first time, an Israeli spy official clearly stated that Israel supports regime change in Syria and that it really demands an end to the government of President Bashar Assad.

“I hope it will happen, even though I don’t know when or how,” Intelligence Agencies Minister Dan Meridor said on Tuesday.

The top spy chief implicated why Assad should go and how it would damage the Islamic Republic of Iran.

“I am not going to try to calculate when Assad’s end will come, but when it happens, Iran’s biggest ally will be gone.”

Taking it for granted that Assad is doomed to go, he said, “I hope the new Syria will understand that joining Iran is a mistake that brings isolation from the Western world.”

Such a feeble perception of the Syrian situation is indicative of one who is either too optimistic or one who is well aware of what is going on behind the scene and that which is not visible to the ordinary people with no intelligence savvy.

Furthermore, Dan Meridor does not seem to understand that the situation in Israel is spiraling out of control with people protesting against social injustice almost on a daily basis. Since last month, four Israelis have set themselves ablaze from an extremity of despair.

On August 5, John McCain and Lindsey O. Graham, both Republicans, who represent Arizona and South Carolina in the Senate, respectively and Joseph I. Lieberman, an independent, who represents Connecticut in the Senate advised the US government to directly and openly provide assistance, including weapons, intelligence and training, to the insurgents in Syria as they claim President’s Assad’s ‘brutality’ is no longer to be tolerated.

“It is not too late for the United States to shift course. First, we can and should directly and openly provide robust assistance to the armed opposition, including weapons, intelligence and training. Whatever the risks of our doing so, they are far outweighed by the risks of continuing to sit on our hands, hoping for the best.”

Another part of this sabotage axis against Syria is Turkey which plays a very treacherous role in snowballing the Syrian crisis. Turkey has supplied the rebels with dozens of man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS).

According to NBC, the missile supplies might have been provided by Turkey, Saudi Kingdom and Qatar monarchy, the three countries which have made strenuous and costly efforts to overthrow the government of Bashar Assad.

In a press conference at the United Nations in New York City, a Syrian UN representative announced that Turkey shipped US-made Stinger anti-aircraft missiles to rebels via Turkey, saying that Turkey was pleased with Kofi Annan’s resignation because Ankara and Washington were initially opposed to his six point peace plan.

In fact, Turkey should be grateful to Syria what it has done for it in the past. It is acknowledged by many pundits that it was Bashar’s father Hafiz Assad who made peace between Turkey and the Kurds living on both sides of the country, thereby vaccinating Turkey for years against any attacks on the part of the Kurds.

The antagonistic policies of Turkey have left President Bashar Assad with no choice but to grant autonomy to the Kurds in Syria who can foment dilemma for the Ankara government and get Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan into hot water.

The ongoing Kurdish insurgency has reportedly claimed the lives of at least 48000 over the past two decades.

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is sharply aware of what a deep impact this decision can exercise on the security of Turkey.

He claimed the two groups had built a “structure in northern Syria” that for Turkey means “a structure of terror.”

Turkey is making a tactical mistake by supporting terrorism in Syria and supplying them with weapons, military training and human resources. Turkey will certainly fall into the pitfall it has dug for Syria and the insecurity it envisages for Syria will ultimately recoil against the government itself.

As for Washington and NATO, they are making a selfsame mistake.

The two are fondling terrorism and extremism by throwing support behind the insurgents in Syria. They know that a popular uprising in the true sense of the word is not clearly discernible in Syria and that what has been taking place in Syria is a string of militancy and terrorist operations funded by the Saudis and the Qataris and some western countries who are waiting to reap the benefits of their atrocities in case Bashar Assad’s government collapses. Such a day, if it comes, will open a new chapter of horror in the Middle East with no end in sight.

The unfurling reality is that the hostile states and powers antagonizing Bashar Assad are gradually getting caught up in the labyrinthine Orwellian pitfall of their own folly and that they are consciously or unconsciously working in the best interests of the Zionist regime.

Britain pledges to support terrorists fighting Syrian govt.

PressTV

British Foreign Secretary William Hague

The UK government has vowed to step up support for terrorists fighting the Syrian government forces in the wake of the UN-Arab League envoy Kofi Annan resignation.

Foreign Secretary William Hague disclosed that Britain had been providing support for terrorists in Syria, adding that the country will be providing even more “practical and non-lethal” support for them.

“We will over the coming weeks increase our practical but non-lethal support to the opposition," Hague said. "We have helped with communications and matters of that kind and we will help them more in this situation given the scale of death and suffering and the failure so far of the diplomatic process."

Hague described Annan’s decision to resign as a “bleak moment” in the armed insurgency that has been seeking to overthrow the popular government of president Bashar al-Assad.

He claimed that the diplomatic approach was not dead, but that “other things” also needed to be done to bring an end to al-Assad government.

“That doesn't mean ... that we give up on diplomacy," Hague said, adding "We don't give up on the diplomacy with Russia and with China. But we will have to do other things as well."

Moscow and Beijing have frequently complained about Western and Arab backing for the insurgents locked in an increasingly bloody drive to topple the Syrian President, saying pressure should be put on both sides to stop the violence.

President Bashar al-Assad says the insurgency is the work of foreign-backed "terrorists", with his own forces acting to restore stability.

UN Vote on Syria Reflects Changing Battlefield

UN Syria Resolution Signals Ebbing Western Legitimacy, Growing Western Aggression 
Land Destroyer

by Tony Cartalucci

August 4, 2012 - Friday's UN vote will no doubt be declared by the Western media as a resounding condemnation of Syria and a "universal" call for a "political transition" to install the US State Department's stable of hand-picked and groomed administrative proxies. However, aside from CNN, BBC, and Qatari Al Jazeera's ever-shrinking audiences, few on the planet will be convinced of these headlines.

133 nations did indeed vote for the resolution tabled by the despotic absolute monarchs of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, both of whom are ironically conducting their own campaigns of brutal repression both at home, and in neighboring Bahrain - this not counting the overt weapons and militants they have sent into Syria to destabilize Syria in the first place. The hypocritical nature of the resolution's sponsors is only outmatched by the feeble support it received. Should one actually analyze how many people were represented by the 133 nations that voted for the resolution, versus the 43 nations that did not support it, they would see a different story.

UN Vote is a Shift Away From Wall Street and London

31 nations abstained, a muted protest to the resolution, with 12 nations voting firmly "no." The combined population represented by these votes consists of the majority of humanity, and had Western representatives actually reflected with their vote their own population's sentiments toward what is becoming yet another overt case of military aggression built on false pretenses- just as the notoriously reviled Iraq War was - the majority standing in opposition to this resolution would have been greater still.

But the West's UN representatives did not reflect the sentiments of their respective populations. Instead, they represented a minority sect of corporate-financiers whose vast ill-gotten fortunes and the unwarranted influence it grants them, has driven the political destabilization and violence sweeping the Arab World since the so-called "Arab Spring" began.

Nations who didn't support the resolution included China, Russia, Iran, Cuba, Pakistan, South Africa, India, Brazil, Bolivia, Venezuela, Iraq, North Korea, Belarus, Nicaragua, Myanmar, and Zimbabwe. It is an incomplete list that is already far too long, and already includes nearly half of the world's population to be labeled as an "Axis of Evil." It represents a shift from a Wall Street and London centric global hegemony, toward a balance of power amongst a multipolar world.

That such a resolution could be tabled by despotic regimes like Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and then subsequently passed, exposes the shortcomings of "global governance" and the so-called "international community." What little sense the UN General Assembly's "one nation, one vote" arrangement makes is further undermined by the fact that representatives of their respective nations rarely vote according to the will and aspirations of their own people in the first place. The UN has become a tool entirely of corporate-financier interests, articulated by UN representatives detached from their own populations, who have hijacked their collective voice and use it to ram through their own narrow, self-serving agendas.

The UN, if it ever even had a realistic constructive role on Earth, has proven itself a menace  - a variable ultimately undermining, not promoting world peace, justice, freedom, progress or any of the other pretenses its dominating members hide their true agendas behind. The UN has become a medium within which grand crimes against world peace can unfold, rather than a bulwark against them.

UN Vote Signals West's Shift Toward Naked Military Aggression

The UN General Assembly vote signals yet another shift - one from feigned diplomacy by the West to achieve long planned hegemonic-driven regime change in Syria, to one of naked military aggression. Kofi Annan's retreat from his self-mutilated peace plan follows the collapse of NATO's "Operation Damascus Volcano" and the subsequent UN General Assembly vote.

His retreat allows for the West to clear the table of "diplomatic options" leaving only military aggression. This was forewarned in March 2012's "UN's Kofi Annan: An Agent of Wall Street," where Annan's ties to the very corporate-financier interests driving Syria's destabilization were exposed. The peace plan was an admitted gambit aimed at satisfying public expectations that "diplomacy" would be tried before a more aggressive military campaign was launched.

UN's Last Chance

With the court of global public opinion clearly turning against the machinations of Wall Street and London, now would be a good opportunity for a resolution to be leveled not against Syria, but against the regimes of Saudi Arabia and Qatar who openly admit to funneling weapons and even foreign fighters into Syria. Libya could also be added to that list, with the United States, France, and Britain also cited under the resolution for undermining world peace and pursing an agenda that demonstratively supports international terrorism.

Surely the West could cobble together a majority based on its vast collection of neo-fiefdoms in the General Assembly, but it would yank the last bit of moral high-ground out from under them, forcing them, their policy makers, and the corporate-financier backers to proceed with their Hitlerian campaign in full light as the aggressors - as the villains.

‘Don’t be duped by Western humanitarian rhetoric on Syria’ – Russia's UN ambassador

Russia Today


Russia and China have for the third time vetoed a UN Security Council resolution on Syria which would entail tragic consequences for Damascus. Russia’s ambassador to the UN told RT why a diplomatic solution to the crisis remains the only option.

­In an exclusive interview with RT, Vitaly Churkin gave his explanation of what is going on in Syria and why he thinks the conflict has spread beyond that country's borders.

RT: Russia's decision to veto this latest resolution has caused consternation and widespread criticism of Moscow's stance – is Russia supporting the Assad regime?

Vitaly Churkin: Of course not. It is all about what needs to be done in order to settle the crisis. Unfortunately, the strategy of our Western colleagues seems to be to try to whip up tensions in and around Syria at every opportunity. And this time they took the occasion of the need to extend the mandate of the monitoring mission in Syria and attached a number of unacceptable clauses to their draft resolution. So, we needed to veto together with China that unacceptable draft to allow Kofi Annan more space to work on the document which was adopted by foreign ministers of a number of countries of the so-called “action group”, which calls for setting up transitional national body and that requires of course the dialogue between various parties. So, in this context, to introduce a resolution which would only entail pressure and almost inevitable sanctions on the Syrian government did not look like a good idea to us at all and we blocked the decision, which in our view was counter-productive.
 
RT: So, Moscow is not supporting the Assad regime, but America, Britain and France say Russia's failed the Syrian people – how do you react to that?

VC: You know, they are quite good and bad and loud about their propaganda. I think that’s what they have been doing by criticizing Russia and China stridently. Today it was the British and French [UN] perm reps who went out of their way, unfortunately, piling all sorts of falsehoods on the foreign policies of Russia and China. They should focus more on the need to help Kofi Annan. Unfortunately, they have not done anything at all in order to set and train a productive and positive process in Syria. Instead, they have been working with the so-called “Friends of Syria”. In fact, this is a group of countries who are enemies of the Syrian government, I would not call them the enemies of the Syrian people, but certainly those who want to topple the Syrian government, disregarding the consequences which are extremely tragic; such a policy inevitably entails [tragedy] because the government or President Assad is not simply one individual or a group of individuals. They represent a certain segment of the Syrian population, of  a certain power structure, which has existed there for decades. To break it would cause and is causing considerable trouble and bloodshed. To reform it through dialogue, this would be a much more reasonable line of action and this is what Russia has been advocating.

RT: But dialogue has not achieved anything so far. Isn't there now an overwhelming global sense that something has to be done to stop the killing of innocent people – what about intervention on humanitarian grounds, is that not acceptable to Moscow? I know that Moscow is very concerned about Chapter 7 leading to perhaps military intervention. But what about some form of intervention to stop the killing?

VC: In a way, the monitoring group which we are trying to maintain is a way of political intervention – of practical intervention –  n trying to deter violence. Unfortunately, it has not happened, it has not been successful. You said the dialogue has not achieved anything. The problem is the dialogue has not started yet. The opposition groups refuse to enter into dialogue with the Syrian government, which says it is prepared for dialogue. They should try that offer of the Syrian government to enter into dialogue. And this is a major missing link, a major impediment in the way of Kofi Annan’s activity. You know, humanitarian intervention unfortunately only sounds humane, but the fact of the matter is that any military intervention for whatever reason is inevitably going to cause more bloodshed. And we know those greatest humanists in the world – US and UK – intervened in Iraq, for instance, citing all sorts of noble pretexts, in that particular case – non-existent weapons of mass destruction. What it caused – 150 thousand civilian deaths alone, to say nothing about millions of refugees, displaced persons and the whole dislocation in the country. So, don’t be duped by humanitarian rhetoric. There is much more geopolitics in their policy in Syria than humanism. Unfortunately, the practical consequences of their policies there is that the conflict and bloodshed is not abating.  
       
RT: You've mentioned geopolitics and I understand you mentioned the fact that what's happening in Syria is going to spread to Iran eventually. Can you explain that? That Iran is the eventual goal?

VC: I did refer to Iran, but in a slightly different context. I would not rule out that then they would move on to Iran, but I was not referring to that. In my remarks at the [Security] Council of the United Nations earlier today I was referring to their clear interest. And this is a major motivation of their policy and their effort to topple President Assad -in curbing Iranian influence in the Middle East and that entire region. And it is also a major motivation of the other Middle Eastern fighters for democracy – Saudi Arabia and Qatar – who are concerned about what they see as Iranian interest; in Bahrain as well. They claim the Shia protests there is sort of Iranian-sponsored even though some observers – including your colleagues and journalists who have experience on the ground –  believe that it happens to be genuine protests against the system which is not entirely democratic, to put it mildly. So, a clear geopolitical dimension is there in the policies of a number of countries, who are extremely aggressive vis-a-vis Syria. And it has nothing to do with the interests of the Syrian people.  
 
RT: What is the worry for Moscow, all these geopolitical implications you’ve explained so clearly, why is Moscow so worried about this? In what way could Moscow be affected?

VC: We are not worried about geopolitical implications even though we believe that greater confrontation with Iran is hurting, is unnecessary and  we are directly involved in efforts to resolve peacefully the problem of the Iranian nuclear program. And this growing tension between Iran, the West and the Saudis is not helpful. Our concern is that the Syrian people have to suffer the consequences of this geopolitical struggle and our concern is that the focus of everybody’s policy must be the benefit of the Syrian people. And the only way they can put an end to this tragic conflict is to get to the negotiating table. And there is a good ground, there is a document which was a consensus document adopted by the “group of action” -foreign ministers in Geneva- two and a half weeks ago which says that a transitional national body needs to be set up and it can not be set up by sanctions, it can not be set up by more pressure on just one side – the Syrian government which is claiming that it is ready for such dialogue, it designated its representative for such a dialogue. But so far the interest from the opposition is not there and we see extreme opposition groups; armed opposition groups resorting to more and more violence and even terrorist attacks like the one we saw yesterday in Damascus. This is not to say that the Syrian government has not resorted to excessive violence at times, they made very serious mistakes and blunders over the months but the time to end it is now. Unless we want to continue it for years, [we need to] enter into a dialogue.

RT: Russia is really stuck by its principles of non-intervention. Is there not a danger of being isolated, bearing in mind the continual vetoing of the sanctions of the UN Security Council and the supplying of military hardware to Syria. Of course Moscow says it is not being used against civilians, but what is it to do for Russia’s reputation and, indeed, its relations after this crisis is over?

VC: We’ll see. I think doing the right thing and not simply following somebody’s catastrophic policy is something which makes me proud and something which eventually will be born out as the right course of action and the right policy under these very difficult circumstances. And about vetoes – if I am not mistaken, the US has cast 60 vetoes on the Palestinian issue alone. So, why don’t you question my American colleagues about the impact of the image of the US in the Middle East of those continuous vetoes? Sometimes even vetoing their own presidential and secretary of state’s public statements. So, the veto is a part of the UN Charter and there is nothing wrong about casting it when you feel the need to do so.
RT: Can we talk about what happens next now? No agreement in the UN Security Council, but Russia has said that it would like to see the extension of the UN observer mission to Syria. But the monitors haven't made any visible impact on the mission so far. So what's the point in keeping the mission alive when so far it has failed?

VC: What would be the point of their departure? We think that we have at least more chances to get objective information if it is there  If the situation were to improve, they would be on the ground already, so, they would be able to participate more actively in political process and also in dealing with the humanitarian situation. Pulling them out is going to entail negative consequences. Unfortunately, now and again we seem to be entering another diplomatic battle. Now we are going to have a discussion about really making it technically rollover without loading it with political conditions and implications.

Syria’s Deadly Bomb Attack on Assad Cabinet: Is This ‘The Price’ Clinton Warned Of?

Global Research
Finian Cunningham

The deadly bomb attack on the top-level meeting of President Bashar Al-Assad’s senior cabinet ministers leaves little doubt that Western intelligence was involved.

Among the victims were defence minister Daoud Rajiha and his deputy and the president’s brother-in-law Assef Shaukat who were killed when a suicide bomber reportedly set off a powerful explosive device as the cabinet meeting got underway at the security headquarters in Damascus, Wednesday, around mid-day local time.

A third fatality was Hassan Turkomani, the country’s deputy vice president and Assad’s chief of crisis management.

The wounded included Hisham Ikhtiar, director of the National Security Bureau, and interior minister Mohammad Ibrahim al-Shaar.

This was the deadliest attack yet on the inner circle of President Assad. It is not clear if he was due to attend the meeting.

While two groups claimed responsibility – the Syrian Free Army and a little-known jihadi organisation calling itself the Lord of the Martyrs Brigade – the weight of evidence points to crucial Western military support in executing the strike.

Over the past 16 months, the armed opposition groups in Syria have been transformed from disorganised gangs engaged in hit-and-run skirmishes with the Syrian state forces to what is now a formidable insurrection capable of mounting bomb and mortar in the capital, Damascus.

During March and early April, up until the Kofi Annan peace plan was announced in mid-April, the Syrian government forces had made significant gains in routing the armed groups from strongholds in Homs and other northern towns. Since the Annan initiative was attempted, however, there has been a sea-change in military capability among the so-called rebels groups.

These groups never even pretended to implement the Annan six-point plan and were given strident support by American, British and French leaders in their rejection of any political process to find a peace settlement. Western governments have resolutely demanded that Assad step down as a prerequisite for any political transition, thus giving a green light to further violence.

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.’

Violence in Syria can destabilize Mideast region: Analyst

Editor's Note:  U.S. propagandist Lawrence J. Corb from Center for American Progress gets handed his ass.   Corb claims the U.S. has left Iraq.

A recent report from the mainstream daily newspaper New York Times has gone into detail as to how the CIA is facilitating arms and other assistance to armed groups in Syria and that it is doing it on Turkish soil near the borders with Syria.

Damascus has always been very vocal that Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia were assisting, funding and arming armed groups operating on the Syrian soil.

With the Kofi Annan's peace plan in limbo and the United Nations Observer mission currently suspended, it seems that the challenge to solve the Syria unrest has become as complicated as ever.

Press TV has conducted an interview with Lawrence J. Korb, from the Center for American Progress in Washington, to further talk over the issue.

The video also offers the opinions of two additional guests: Sukant Chandan, a political commentator in London, and Kevin Barrett who is an author and Islamist studies’ expert from Madison. What follows is an approximate transcript of the interview.

Press TV: It is not just the issue of the armed groups in Syria, but there have been a ton of reports indicating that Al-Qaeda is active and is being funded by the US, or its proxies. Why is the US arming Al-Qaeda?

Korb: Wait a second! You have got the story all wrong. What the New York Times article said today and again we are not quite sure not everything that is written in the newspapers come to be true but what they were saying is that the US people are there to make sure arms are not the ones they are supplying; we are not supplying any.

Do not fall into the hands of al-Qaeda. That is their mission. And this idea that somehow the United States wants regime change in all these areas is nonsensical, this all started what happened in Tunisia; that it moved to Egypt.

In fact, we were criticized for staying with Mubarak too long and even the Israelis are not happy with what is going to happen in Egypt given the fact that they had very good relations with Mubarak. President Obama has been criticized by his political opposition for not doing more.

In fact, Senator McCain who ran against him for president last time basically is urging the United States to start an air campaign. President Obama was criticized for not doing enough in Libya for basically to use the term leading from behind.

So this idea that the United States wants regime change, the United States basically wants the people of Syria to make a decision in a non-violent way. The way it was done for example in Tunisia and the way it was done in Egypt and the UN was the one who basically, with Russia and China, that wanted to get in there to stop the violence.

The rebels agreed to lay down their arms; Assad said he would but then he did not. You know, one of the most significant things happened today, was not the New York Times story, was the fact that a Syrian pilot flying a Mig-21 went to Jordan to seek asylum and we know many of the members of the Syrian military particularly enlisted people are now defecting and I think the real question is can we stop this before there is any more slaughter.

Press TV: Time and again Turkey has been indicated in the arming and facilitating of the armed groups in Syria. What is Turkey's agenda in Syria?

Korb: Again, your guest in London [Sukant Chandan] was talking about the United States ally of Rwanda. President Clinton was criticized for not doing anything to stop the slaughter in Rwanda.

We are talking about Somalia; that is not an American operation; that is the Ugandans, the Kenyans, and people from Burundi. So this idea that somehow the United States is trying to use its allies to control these countries is simply not true.

And it is interesting that your other American guest [Kevin Barrett] was talking about after 9/11. After 9/11, Iran condemned the attacks of 9/11; Iran supported the United States going into Afghanistan.

Even with Iraq which I happen to think was a mistaken war, was an unnecessary war but the fact of the matter is when the Iraqis told us to leave, we left. So this idea that somehow we are trying to control this is not true. Now that we have a military industrial complex, yeas, but you know, they are focused on these days, not focused on the Middle East; they focused on the “threat from China” to justify keeping the military budget up and in fact you probably have seen the whole question about the pivot to Asia rather than focusing on the Middle East.

The interesting thing is al-Qaeda got upset at the United States. One of their concerns was that we were supporting regimes like Mubarak. Well, now that we are not, what is the narrative? So I think that somehow in other word mixing up an awful lot of things.

As I said, President Obama is getting beaten up by his political opponents for not doing anything in Syria. He was beaten up by his political opponents for not doing more in Libya. So this idea that the United States is trying to dominate or control ... and even the Israelis would prefer Mubarak being in power. They are concerned about what is going to happen with this election if we ever find out what the situation is.

To get your other question, the Turks were brokering peace talks between the Assad government and the Israelis. And so the idea that somehow on the other hand the Israelis are concerned about a civil war now and I think that is what the Turks are concerned about that this war in Syria will spread because if the Russians keep sending new or used helicopters there, the fighting will go on and that it will spread into their border.

That is what the Turks are concerned about. They do not want to see these things spread.

Press TV: How can ending the unrest in Syria be a Syria lead initiative if there are so many factors, so many external factors, being tossed in the mix?

Korb: Again, if you go back when they started and the Syrian people started demonstrating and asking for reforms, the Assad regime, rather than negotiating with them, started killing them. Well before this, anybody on the opposition side was using violence, the government was cracking down.

It is incredible; I am listening to the history here. People forget Assad’s father. Assad’s father killed 40 thousand people in order to put himself into power. What would the “imperialist” that you are calling on the British, the French and the United States, no, we did not do that.

And everybody had hoped, given the fact that he was educated in the West; that he might be a little bit more reasonable, but he has been every bit as bad as his father and the international community is under tremendous pressure.

You go back to Libya; it was the Arab League that pushed us to get involved not the British and the French. There were playings from the Arab League; [got us for] flying missions over there. The United States only did something like 25 percent of what happened there.

So the idea that somehow this is the United States ... believe me, the United States would like to focus on its problems at home rather than having to deal with these issues and I am sure President Obama will just assume that the violence stop there so he could focus on what is happening here.

So I think people are sort of mixing up history. It is like the Iranians helped at the Bonn Conference; it was Iran, your country, that persuaded the Northern Alliance to support Karzai. This was not an American initiative, so somehow [neither] the idea that the United States was trying to control all the things. We want to leave Afghanistan and trying to leave and in fact we have turned over a more and more of dimensions to the Afghans. 

The United Nations and the Houla Massacre: The Information Battlefield

Global Research

Ronda Hauben

At a press conference held on June 4 marking the beginning of China’s presidency of the UN Security Council for the month of June, Li Baodong, China’s Ambassador to the UN, observed that there are different versions of the facts of the Houla Massacre. “Now we have different stories from different angles,” he noted. “Now we have the story from the Syrian government, and from the opposition parties, and from different sources.” 

Since the Security Council has “ a team….on the ground,” he said, “We want to see first-hand information from our own people.” He hoped this would make it possible to put the different pieces of information together and to come “to our own conclusion with our own judgment.”(1)

The expectation was that Joint UN-Arab League Envoy Kofi Annan would be able to provide further information from the UNSMIS Observer mission when he came to speak with the Security Council on Thursday, June 7. It was anticipated that Annan’s presentation would help to clarify the facts of the massacre. (2) 

On June 7, however, instead of providing new information from such an investigation, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and several of the other speakers at the Informal General Assembly (GA) meeting put the responsibility for the Houla Massacre on the Assad government. This was also the dominant response of the nations that spoke at the Informal GA meeting even though there had not yet been any adequate investigation into facts of the situation. (3) Also, there were claims of a new massacre. 

Some of the member nations that spoke at the Informal GA meeting, however, objected to coming to such a conclusion, especially, in the absence of an adequate investigation.

In his comments referring to the massacres in Houla and on the outskirts of Hama, the Russian Ambassador to the UN, Vitaly Churkin, said, “Clearly these are the most serious crimes that require a reliable detailed investigation.” 

Other nations including Venezuela, India, Cuba and Nicaragua expressed similar views. The Venezuelan Representative told the Informal GA meeting, “We suspect the fact that these criminal acts happen to coincide with these debates at the UN. We have to wonder to whom does this benefit at this time?” He urged that, “an independent and transparent investigation into these massacres must take place and we must find convincing clarity.”

India’s Ambassador to the UN, Hardeep Singh Puri, noted that the attacks against civilians and security forces in Syria “have intensified over the last few weeks and have taken a significant toll.” Also he drew attention to the sharp increase in the number of terrorist attacks in different parts of the country.” He “condemned all violence, irrespective of who the perpetrators are,” and called for the “cessation of all outside support for armed groups and serious action against the terrorist groups in Syria.” And he asked that the crimes, “including the recent incident in El Houleh, are fully investigated and their perpetrators brought to justice.”

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."

Twin blasts in Syrian capital leave 27 dead, 97 wounded

 PressTV

At least 27 people, including civilians, have been killed and more than 97 others injured in two car bomb attacks in Al-Qasaa and Duwar al- Jamarek areas in the Syrian capital, health minister says.

"Twenty-seven people, mostly civilians, were killed and 97 others wounded in the two explosions," Wael al-Halaqi said.

One bomb planted in a car went off outside the Syrian Air Force Intelligence Headquarters and another explosion hit a security police building in Damascus, according to the Syrian state TV.

“Terrorists” have been blamed by the Syrian state TV for the blasts, but no further details have been released yet.

This is not the first time that the Syrian cities have been targeted by bomb attacks. Bombings in Damascus and other cities in the past few months have left scores of people dead.

The latest development comes as the UN-Arab League envoy for Syria, Kofi Annan, is set to send a team to Damascus to discuss a new international monitoring mission. The Syrian government said on Friday that it will cooperate with Annan to end the year-long unrest in the country.

Syria has been experiencing unrest since mid-March 2011 and many people, including security forces, have lost their lives in the violence.

The West and the Syrian opposition accuse the government of killing the protesters. But Damascus blames ''outlaws, saboteurs and armed terrorist groups'' for the unrest, insisting that it is being orchestrated from abroad.