Wednesday, 28 August 2013

In Rush to Strike Syria, U.S. Tried to Derail U.N. Probe

In Rush to Strike Syria, U.S. Tried to Derail U.N. Probe
Aug 27th, 2013 @ 11:00 pm › Gareth Porter
↓ Skip to comments
After initially insisting that Syria give United Nations investigators unimpeded access to the site of an alleged nerve gas attack, the administration of President Barack Obama reversed its position on Sunday and tried unsuccessfully to get the UN to call off its investigation.
The administration’s reversal, which came within hours of the deal reached between Syria and the UN, was reported by the Wall Street Journal Monday and effectively confirmed by a State Department spokesperson later that day.
In his press appearance Monday, Secretary of State John Kerry, who intervened with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon to call off the investigation, dismissed the UN investigation as coming too late to obtain valid evidence on the attack that Syrian opposition sources claimed killed as many 1,300 people.
The sudden reversal and overt hostility toward the UN investigation, which coincides with indications that the administration is planning a major military strike against Syria in the coming days, suggests that the administration sees the UN as hindering its plans for an attack.
Kerry asserted Monday that he had warned Syrian Foreign Minister Moallem last Thursday that Syria had to give the UN team immediate access to the site and stop the shelling there, which he said was “systematically destroying evidence”. He called the Syria-U.N. deal to allow investigators unrestricted access “too late to be credible”.
After the deal was announced on Sunday, however, Kerry pushed Ban in a phone call to call off the investigation completely.
The Wall Street Journal reported the pressure on Ban without mentioning Kerry by name. It said unnamed “US officials” had told the secretary-general that it was “no longer safe for the inspectors to remain in Syria and that their mission was pointless.”
But Ban, who has generally been regarded as a pliable instrument of US policy, refused to withdraw the UN team and instead “stood firm on principle”, the Journal reported. He was said to have ordered the UN inspectors to “continue their work”.
The Journal said “US officials” also told the secretary-general that the United States “didn’t think the inspectors would be able to collect viable evidence due to the passage of time and damage from subsequent shelling.”

 The State Department spokesperson, Marie Harf, confirmed to reporters that Kerry had spoken with Ban over the weekend. She also confirmed the gist of the US position on the investigation. “We believe that it’s been too long and there’s been too much destruction of the area for the investigation to be credible,” she said.
That claim echoed a statement by an unnamed “senior official” to the Washington Post Sunday that the evidence had been “significantly corrupted” by the regime’s shelling of the area.
“[W]e don’t at this point have confidence that the UN can conduct a credible inquiry into what happened,” said Harf, “We are concerned that the Syrian regime will use this as a delay tactic to continue shelling and destroying evidence in the area.”
Harf did not explain, however, how the Syrian agreement to a ceasefire and unimpeded access to the area of the alleged chemical weapons attack could represent a continuation in “shelling and destroying evidence”.
Despite the US effort to portray the Syrian government policy as one of “delay”, the formal request from the United Nations for access to the site did not go to the Syrian government until Angela Kane, UN High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, arrived in Damascus on Saturday, as Ban’s spokesman, Farhan Haq, conceded in a briefing in New York Tuesday.
Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem said in a press conference Tuesday that Syria had not been asked by the United Nations for access to the East Ghouta area until Kane presented it on Saturday. Syria agreed to provide access and to a ceasefire the following day.
Haq sharply disagreed with the argument made by Kerry and the State Department that it was too late to obtain evidence of the nature of the Aug. 21 incident.
“Sarin can be detected for up to months after its use,” he said.
Specialists on chemical weapons also suggested in interviews with IPS that the UN investigating team, under a highly regarded Swedish specialist Ake Sellstom and including several experts borrowed from the Organization for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons, should be able to either confirm or disprove the charge of an attack with nerve or another chemical weapon within a matter of days.
Ralph Trapp, a consultant on proliferation of chemical and biological weapons, said he was “reasonably confident” that the UN team could clarify what had happened.
“They can definitely answer the question [of] whether there was a chemical attack, and they can tell which chemical was used,” he said, by collecting samples from blood, urine and hair of victims. There was even “some chance” of finding chemical residue from ammunition pieces or craters where they landed.
Trapp said it would take “several days” to complete an analysis.
Steve Johnson, who runs a program in chemical, biological and radiological weapons forensics at Cranfield University in the United Kingdom, said that by the end of the week the UN might be able to answer whether “people died of a nerve agent.”
Johnson said the team, if pushed, could produce “some kind of view” on that issue within 24 to 48 hours.
Dan Kastesza, a 20-year veteran of the US Army Chemical Corps and a former adviser to the White House on chemical and biological weapons proliferation, told IPS the team will not be looking for traces of the nerve gas sarin in blood samples but rather chemicals produced when sarin degrades.
But Kastesza said that once samples arrive at laboratories, specialists could make a determination “in a day or two” about whether a nerve agent or other chemical weapons had been used.
The real reason for the Obama administration’s hostility toward the UN investigation appears to be the fear that the Syrian government’s decision to allow the team access to the area indicates that it knows that UN investigators will not find evidence of a nerve gas attack.
The administration’s effort to discredit the investigation recalls the George W. Bush administration’s rejection of the position of UN inspectors in 2002 and 2003 after they found no evidence of any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the administration’s refusal to give inspectors more time to fully rule out the existence of an active Iraqi WMD program.
In both cases, the administration had made up its mind to go to war and wanted no information that could contradict that policy to arise.
Inter Press Service

posted by Satish Sharma at 11:24 0 Comments

America is not the world's policeman – in Syria or Iraq - HANS BLIX interview

America is not the world's policeman – in Syria or Iraq

In an interview, Hans Blix (chief UN arms inspector for Iraq from 2000-2003) says: If US military action in Syria is all about 'punishing' Bashar al-Assad to satisfy public and media opinion without even hearing the UN inspectors report, it will be a sad day for international legality.

By Nathan Gardels, Hans Blix / August 27, 2013
Hans Blix was the chief UN arms inspector for Iraq from 2000-2003. He was also the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) from 1981 to 1997 and Swedish minister of foreign affairs (1978-79). He spoke with Global Viewpoint Network editor Nathan Gardels on Aug. 26.
Nathan Gardels: Based on your experience, and what you've seen in recent days, do you believe the verdict of the Western intelligence agencies that Assad used chemical weapons is credible and reliable?
Hans Blix: The indications are certainly in the direction of the use of chemical weapons. Also, the circumstantial evidence points to the Assad regime carrying out the use of such weapons.
However, since the Western powers have asked for United Nations inspections – and Syria has accepted and inspectors have been put in the field – we all should wait to see the report of the inspectors before action is taken. 
As we’ve seen before, the political dynamics are running ahead of due process.
Gardels: An echo of Iraq under President Bush?
Blix: In a way, yes. Then, too, the Americans and their allies asked for inspections for mass destruction weapons. Then, too, they said, “forget it, we have enough evidence on our own to act. We are the world police. Our publics are demanding immediate action!”
I do not go along with the statement by the US that “it is too late” for Syria now to cooperate. That is a poor excuse for taking military action.
Only last March, the West was satisfied with inspections concerning the use of chemical weapons. Why can’t they wait again now? In one month when you have accurate tissue samples we will know for sure exactly which kind of chemical weapons have been used and who possesses such weapons.
Gardels: But now it is President Barack Obama, not George Bush, taking on the role of world policeman? 
Blix: Yes. He was the only one, some time ago now, who talked about international legality. I was heartened by that. But now I’m afraid the politics of the moment are pushing him in a direction we’ve seen before in the United States.
British Prime Minister David Cameron also doesn’t seem to care much about international legality. And this time, neither do the French.
As far as they are all concerned, a criminal act has been committed so now they must engage in what they call “retaliation.” I don’t see what they are retaliating about. The weapons weren’t used against them.  It should be the rebels who want retaliation.
If the aim is to stop the breach of international law and to keep the lid on others with chemical weapons, military action without first waiting for the UN inspector report is not the way to go about it. 
This is about world police, not world law.
Gardels: Do the Western intelligence agencies know where the chemical weapons are? Are they vulnerable? Can an air attack be effective?
Blix: Well, the Israelis know where they are. But attacking stockpiles with cruise missiles, as I understand it, has the disadvantage that is might spread chemical weapons in the vicinity of any attack.
Gardels: What are the implications of the US and its Western allies once again taking action without the United Nations? There was Kosovo, then Iraq, then Libya. Now, it appears, Syria will join the list. 
Blix: In Kosovo the intervention was based upon NATOapproval. This was not enough. I do not think NATO approval is satisfactory in terms of international law. You need to have Security Council approval. 
In the Iraq case, the Bush administration did not care at all about the UN. They just went ahead with the British and a few others. They were totally contemptuous of the UN.
I remember that John Kerry, now US secretary of State and who was a senator then, was ridiculed at that time for saying the US should wait for UN inspections and approval of action.
In the wake of the Iraq war, Obama, in his Nobel lecture, also argued that military action should not be taken against other states without UN Security Councilapproval. That was then, I guess. Now is now.
In Libya, there was a Security Council resolution, but it was very liberally interpreted after the fact, strained from its intent to protect civilians under impending attack to the overthrow of Qaddafi.
Gardels: But the Russians and Chinese will never agree to take military action against Syria, so why even try the UN route?
Blix: The Russians and Chinese have said they want “fair and professional inspections” in Syria. The Iranians have also agreed. In this matter they have a serious interest; the Iranians have suffered most in the world from the use of chemical weapons in their war with Iraq during Saddam [Hussein]’s time.
They are not condoning the use of chemical weapons by their friends in Damascus.
In my view, it is certainly a possibility that you can achieve world condemnation of Syria in the Security Council – including from Russia, China, and Iran – if inspections prove the suspicions.
Gardels: But they will never go along with military action?
Blix: China and Russia will not accept military action. That is true. But let us ask:
“What kind of military action is really possible, and what will it really do?” A cruise missile attack on suspected weapons depots in Syria will mean little, and perhaps nothing.
Remember President Clinton’s punitive cruise missile attacks in 1998 on reputed terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and a supposed nerve agent factory in Khartoum in Sudan. The pinpricks in Afghanistan did nothing to stop Al Qaeda. Khartoum turned out to be a total error. It was a pharmaceutical plant.
If military action is all about “punishing” Assad to satisfy public and media opinion without even hearing the UN inspectors report, it will be a sad day for international legality.
© 2013 Global Viewpoint Network, Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Hosted online by The Christian Science Monitor.

posted by Satish Sharma at 11:15 0 Comments

Prince Bandar and Zionist Lobby Forcing Obama into a Prolonged Syrian War

Prince Bandar and Zionist Lobby

Forcing Obama into a Prolonged Syrian War

by FRANKLIN LAMB
Tehran
The Bandar-Zionist lobby collaboration, currently the cocktail party talk of many in Washington,  is not  a case of strange bedfellows given three decades of mutual cooperation which started during Prince Bandar’s long tenure as Saudi ambassador in Washington. Based in Washington, but with a palace out west and up north, Bandar developed almost familial relationships with five presidents and their key advisers. His voice was one of the shrillest urging the United States to invade Iraq in 2003. In the 1980s, Prince Bandar was deeply involved in the Iran-Contra scandal in Nicaragua and it his intelligence  agency that first alerted Western allies to the alleged use of sarin gas by the Syrian regime in February. Bandar has reportedly for months been focused exclusively on garnering international support, including arms and training, for Syrian rebel factions in pursuit of the eventual toppling of President Bashar al-Assad.
Reportedly, the Saudi-Zionist discretely coordinated effort, confirmed by Congressional staffers working on the US House Foreign Affairs Committee as well and the US Senate Foreign Relations committee, is being led by Bandar protégé, Adel A. al-Jubeir, the current Saudi ambassador and facilitated by Bahrain ambassador Houda Ezra Ebrahimis Nonoo, who is the first Jewish person, and third woman to be appointed ambassador of Bahrain.Long known, for having myriad contacts at AIPAC HQ, and as an ardent Zionist, Houda Nonoo has attended lobby functions while advising  associates that the “Arabs must forget about the so-called Liberation of Palestine. It will never happen.”
The project has set its sights on achieving American involvement in its third and hopefully its forth (the Islamic Republic) war in this region in just over one decade.
Labeled the ‘surgical strike project”, according to one Congressional staffer, the organizers, as of 8/26/13 are blitzing US Congressional offices with “ fact sheets” making the following arguments in favor of an immediate sustained air assault.  They are being supported by the increasingly anguished cries from neo-cons in Congress such as John McCain, Lindsey Graham and their ilk.
The lobby’s missive details calculations why the project will succeed and turn out to be a political plus for Obama who is increasingly being accused, by this same team, of dithering. Bandar is arguing that Syrian threats to retaliate against Israel is only political posturing because Syria has never and will never launch a war against Israel, has no military capacity to do so and for the reason that Israel could level Damascus and the Baathist regime knows this well.
In addition, the Prince and his partners insist that Iran will do nothing but complain because it has too much to lose. Iran will not response other than verbally and has no history of attacking the US or Israel and would not risk the unpredictable consequences of a military response by the Republic Guards or even some of its backed militia in Iraq or Syria. Sources in Tehran have reported otherwise to this observer.
Hezbollah, it is claimed, will not act without orders from Tehran which has instructed it to maintain its heavy weapons in moth balls until the coming ‘big war’ with Israel..  It is widely agreed that if Israel attacks Iran, the region will ignite with Hezbollah playing an important role in targeting occupied Palestine.
McClain, a former pilot in Vietnam, is even pushing “weapons to be employed” list, which includes advising the White House and Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on how to do their jobs. Congressional sources report that there is tension between McCain and the Pentagon because the Senator is implying that the Pentagon doesn’t know its job or what assets it has available and how to use them.
The Saudi official acknowledges that a military strike is a game changer, especially for Russia and that it will kill any diplomatic initiative (including Geneva II), meaning that Russia will lose a serious advantage in Syria. This also means that Russia will lose its bargaining chips which could have bought them the consensus they need, political or economic. But this does not mean that Russia will stand up to the U.S. militarily, as the losses in this case would be more severe. All this is reportedly acceptable to the Prince and the lobby.
The timing of such an attack according to knowledgeable sources in Damascus and Washington would probably last no more than two days and involve sea-launched cruise missiles and long-range bombers.
Reportedly, striking military targets not directly related to Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal, hinges on three factors: completion of an intelligence report assessing Syrian government culpability for the chemical attack; continuing consultation with allies and Congress; and the Department of States International Law Bureau preparing the justification under international law.
One of the most common phases being uttered by AIPAC to congressional offices this week are the words, “Assad’s massive use of chemical weapons”.
Bandar has reportedly agreed that Israel can call the shots but that the air assault will be led by the US and involve roughly two dozen US allies including Turkey, the UK and France.  The German weekly ‘Focus” reported on 8/26/13 that the IDF’s 8200 intelligence unlit bugged the Syrian leadership during the chemical weapons attack last week and that Israel ‘sold” the incriminating information to the White House.
A group from Israel arrived in Washington on 8/26/13.  It included the Director of the Political-Security Staff in the Defense Ministry, Jaj. Gen. (res) Amos Gilad, Director of Planning Branch Maj. Gen. Nimrod Shefer and IDF intelligence Research Department Director Brigadier General Ital Brun. After some intense discussions, the shared some of their tapes with US officials.
The Bandar/AIPAC arguments being, pushed by this delegation and being spread around capitol hill  as part of “Israel sharing its sterling intelligence”  can be summarized as follows:
The US must avoid half measures to pursue a limited punitive response to the CW use.  What is needed is a sustained Bosnia style bombing campaign until Bashar al-Assad is removed from office. Giving in to that temptation would be a mistake.
The use of the CW affords President Obama an, underserved opportunity to correct his errant Middle East policies.  As Isreal’s  agent, Robert Satloff  of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy ( WINEP) is telling anyone who is willing to listen, “Obama’s deep reluctance to engage in Syria is clear to all. This hesitancy is part of his policy to wind down U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan and his championing of the idea of “nation building at home.” It is not understandable and to the millions of Americans who see Syria as a heaven-sent contest between radical Shiites and radical Sunnis, it is unwise and inappropriate. “
According to the Saudi’s,” the Obama administration now faces Bashar al-Assad’s regime and its Iranian sponsors who  believe they can put a stake through the heart of U.S. power and prestige in the region by testing the president’s “red line” on the use of chemical weapons (CW). “ WINEP is arguing in a memo just issued, “ For Assad, large-scale use of CW serves multiple ends — it demoralizes the rebels, underscores the impotence of their external financiers and suppliers, and confirms to Assad’s own patrons that he is committed to fight to the bitter end. For the Iranians, Assad’s CW use makes Syria — not Iran’s nuclear facilities — the battlefield to test American resolve.”
For Bander and his Zionist collaborators, the key issue is not whether Obama authorizes the use of American force as a response to Syria’s use of CW. Rather, the key imperative is that the U.S. use whatever force in necessary to achieve regime change and choose the next regime assuring that it will be friendly to Israel.
WINEP and AIPAC are arguing that If the US military action is designed to only punish Assad for violating the international norm on CW,” it will merely have the effect of defining for Assad the acceptable tools for mass killing — perhaps only the acceptable quantities of CW to use at any given time — and will have little impact on the outcome of the Syrian conflict; in fact, it might just embolden Assad and his allies.”
Bandar has told Congressional friends who he has known for decades, that if American military action must be designed to alter the balance of power between the various rebel groups and the Syrian/Iranian/Hezbollah alliance?  This will require a wholesale change in U.S. on-the-ground strategy to supply and train well-vetted opposition militias.
For Israel and its agents, the worst of all is victory by the Assad/Iranian/Hezbollah axis, which a brief but fiery barrage of cruise missiles is liable to bring about. A global power thousands of miles away cannot calibrate stalemate to ensure that neither party wins; we have to prioritize the most negative outcomes and use our assets to prevent them.
The Bandar-Zionist project is still not irreversible.  The Pentagon and especially Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey, are very concerned and have threatened to resign in protest.  For they realize that there is a grave risk that the Syrian response will lead to a clash with one of its neighbors, a US ally.  Any scenario is possible from the moment that the first missile leaves American ships in the eastern Mediterranean.
Sources in Iran and Syria has advised this observers that they expect the US bombing to commence within 72 hours.
Franklin Lamb is doing research in Syria and Lebanon and can be reached c/o fplamb@gmail.com

posted by Satish Sharma at 10:50 0 Comments

In sharp contrast to Genghis Khan’s frank battle cry — Morindoo (Mount Up), America prepares for battle with sheer lies.

America’s Battle Cry: Red Lines and Lies

“Oh, what a tangled web we weave…when first we practice to deceive.”  Walter Scott


by Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich


The fear and loathing once felt toward Mongols has been transferred to America
Historians consider the Mongol raids and invasions as some of the deadliest conflicts in human history. Their legacy of savagery and bloodshed preceded them; their orgy of violence and destruction left its ugly imprints in the collective memory of peoples everywhere. So much so that until recently simple folk in some corners of the world would cower unruly children with the threat of an impending ‘Mongol arrival’. Today, the fear and loathing once felt toward Mongols has been transferred to America.
In sharp contrast to Genghis Khan’s frank battle cry — Morindoo (Mount Up), America prepares for battle with sheer lies.
1.bp.blogspot.com -Qr2nB11pKC0 UBKogECyOLI AAAAAAAABF0 XDhPIZphI_A s500 imperialismo3
In the 21st century alone, Washington has rolled out a heavy arsenal of lies, misinformation, and dubious intelligence to sell war to the American people.  On September 13, 2001, while the country was digesting 9/11, JINSA (Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs) already had a statement/plan ready for Washington.  Their policy called for America to be involved in disputes far and wide for the unforeseen future not only in Afghanistan and Iraq, but also in countries such as Iran, Pakistan, Syria, Sudan, the Palestinian Authority, Libya, Algeria and eventually Saudi Arabia and Egypt’.[i] Washington heeded.
The Rendon Group is a public relations and propaganda firm headed by John Rendon (wiki)
The Rendon Group is a public relations and propaganda firm headed by John Rendon (wiki)
In the fall of 2001, the Rendon Group was given a contract to handle PR aspects of the U.S. military strike in Afghanistan. One year later, in September 2002, a ‘meticulously planned strategy to persuade the public, the Congress and the allies of the need to confront the threat from Saddam Hussein’ was devised[ii].   As part of this strategy, an interagency ‘Iraq Public Diplomacy group’ comprising of NSC, CIA, Pentagon, State and USAID staffers was created.
This group produced documentary and press releases showing interviews with Iraqi exiles and dissidents, chief among them the Iraqi National Council (INC) — a 1992 project of the Rendon Group with Ahmad Chalabi at its head.
Simultaneous with interviews,  the public mind was lulled into submission by showing pictures of the smoking Twin Towers and victims of Saddam Hossein’s chemical attacks (weapons supplied by the United States and with Washington’s full knowledge to use against Iranians) with the goal of convincing the public that Saddam Hossein’s non-existent WMD.
The public was convinced. America launched on its campaign of ‘shock and awe’ from the stolen nation of Diego Garcia where the natives of the Island had been expelled from their homes after which “officials ordered their pets to be exterminated. They were gassed with exhaust fumes from American military vehicles” [iii].
Soaking in a bloody orgy of destruction in Iraq, Washington was preparing the next battle front – Syria (in addition to Iran and the other aforementioned countries).

Barely a decade has passed since the spin masters lies launched an illegal, immoral, and costly war against Iraq that once again they are bombarding us with propaganda and lies, wanting us to believe that the Assad government used chemical weapon.   In almost exact replica of the Iraq lies, plans were put into motion to remove Assad and neutralize Syria with help from the “opposition” (HERE).  Among those who cooperated with Washington and allies, the Syria National Council (SNC) gained prominence.  Not surprising given the support of their political heavyweights.  SNC’s  most senior spokesperson, Bassma Kodmani who worked for the Ford Foundation[1] in  Cairo in 2005, took up a new post as executive director of the Arab Reform Initiative (ARI) initiated by the powerful Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).  Thereon, Kodmani attended Bilderberg conferences (see more HERE).  This time the PR firm for the “opposition” was the powerful Lynton Crosby which lobbied on their behalf.
Even though revelations have been made that such a false flag operation had been in the making, and that the United States backed the plan to use chemical weapons and blame it on Assad,  and as skepticism is being  voiced in every corner (HERE), Washington is planning a  “humanitarian” war.

Given the appointment of the interventionist Samantha Power to the United Nations, and her awareness of the Mongol legacy, makes this move inevitable.  Citing Hitler, Power wrote:
“It was knowingly and lightheartedly that Genghis Khan sent thousands of women and children to their death.  History sees in him only the founder of a state… The aim of war is not to reach definite lines but to annihilate the enemy physically”. (Power, 2002[iv])
Perhaps she, along with other Washington decision makers, is looking at history in the same fashion as Washington prepares to move onto the next target – a target that will entangle America in a global conflict.
In April 2013, the powerful BRICS nations drew their red line on Syria and Iran. Iran recently drew its own red line on Syria.  These are the red lines Washington should heed instead of caving in to the lobbies’ war cries if it is to conflict  – a conflict which will bring an abrupt end to the declining empire.
Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich is an independent researcher and writer with a focus on U.S. foreign policy and the role of lobby groups in influencing US foreign policy
[1] Ford Foundation was a conduit for CIA funds during the Cold War according to Frances Stonor Saunders (TheCultural Cold War: the CIA and the World of Arts and Letters. New York: New Press 2000) and seemingly, it continues to play a prominent role in post Cold War activities.
[i] Richard Bonney, False Prophets: The ‘Clash of Civilizations’ and the Global War on Terror, Peter Lang 2008; “This Goes Beyond Bin Laden,” JINSA press release, September 13, 2001.
[ii] Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber, “Weapons of Mass Deception: the uses of propaganda in Bush’s war on Iraq.”  Penguin, 2003
[iv] Power,  Samantha.  “A Problem From Hell; America and the Age of Genocide”. Perennial, 2002.  pp23

posted by Satish Sharma at 06:26 0 Comments

Hypocrisy and Legacy of Death Linger as US Claims Moral Authority in Syria

Hypocrisy and Legacy of Death Linger as US Claims Moral Authority in Syria

US slams "chemical weapons" in Syria while being a serial user of weapons widely condemned by the global community.

- Andrea Germanos, staff writer


This is about the large-scale indiscriminate use of weapons that the civilized world long ago decided must never be used at all, a conviction shared even by countries that agree on little else... And there is a reason why no matter what you believe about Syria, all peoples and all nations who believe in the cause of our common humanity must stand up to assure that there is accountability for the use of chemical weapons so that it never happens again." 
These statements by Secretary of State John Kerry on Monday put on display the hypocrisy of the United States, a serial user of weapons widely condemned by the global community.
From cluster bombs to depleted uranium to napalm, recent history of U.S. warfare shows a trail of weapons leaving long-lasting civilian harm.
The U.S. has not joined the Convention on Cluster Munitions and instead continues to produce and sell cluster bombs, and used them as recently as seven years ago.  According to the Cluster Munition Coalition, from the 1960s to 2006, the U.S. dropped cluster bombs on Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Albania, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq.
Napalm was not only widely used by the U.S. during the years of the Vietnam War but also in 2003 during the invasion of Iraq, though it only admitted to having used it in Iraq after irrefutable evidence was out.
The U.S. also used white phosphorus on Iraq and Afghanistan.  White phosphorus was used in 2004 during the assault on Fallujah, and the New York Times reported its use as recently as in 2011 in Afghanistan. Steve Goose and Bonnie Docherty of the Arms Division at Human Rights Watch wrote:
The Associated Press reported that an 8-year-old Afghan girl, Razia, was injured when a white phosphorus shell ripped through her home in the Tagab Valley of Kapisa province in June 2009. When she reached the operating room, white powder covered her skin, the oxygen mask on her face started to melt, and flames appeared when doctors attempted to scrape away the dead tissue.
White phosphorus munitions cause particularly severe injuries, including chemical burns down to the bone. Wounds contaminated by white phosphorus can reignite days later when bandages are removed, produce poisoning that leads to organ failure and death, and lead to lifetime health problems.
Still from video from The Guardian on hospitals in Falluja dealing with chronic deformities in infantsThe U.S. use of depleted uranium, what one peace activist described as America's Silent Weapon of Mass Destruction, in Iraq has left a horrific legacy of birth defects and cancers for Iraqis and soldiers.
There is also the death and destruction the U.S. launched in 1945 when it became the only country to drop nuclear bombs.
This all leads Middle Eastern history professor Mark LeVine to ask on Tuesday:
Can a government that supported the use of chemical weapons in one conflict claim any moral, political or legal authority militarily to attack another country for using the same weapons, particularly when the attack is not authorised by the UN Security Council?
Not only did the US aid the use of chemical weapons by the former Iraqi government, it also used chemical weapons on a large scale during its 1991 and 2003 invasions of Iraq, in the form of depleted-uranium (DU) ammunition.
As Dahr Jamail's reporting for Al Jazeera has shown, the use of DU by the US and UK has very likely been the cause not only of many cases of Gulf War Syndrome suffered by Iraq war veterans, but also of thousands of instances of birth defects, cancer and other diseases - causing a "large-scale public health disaster" and the "highest rate of genetic damage in any population ever studied" - suffered by Iraqis in areas subjected to frequent and intense attacks by US and allied occupation forces. 
Thus what we have now is a situation in which a government (the United States) that has both supported and committed large-scale and systematic war crimes in one country (Iraq) is leading the international effort to stop Iraq's neighbour Syria from continuing to use chemical weapons against its own people.
This week, as we hear corporate media amplifying calls to attack Syria and know of U.S.complicity in Iraq's use of chemical weapons, a piece from the Guardian's George Monbiot from November of 2005 stands out.  He wrote, in part:
We were told that the war with Iraq was necessary for two reasons. Saddam Hussein possessed biological and chemical weapons and might one day use them against another nation. And the Iraqi people needed to be liberated from his oppressive regime, which had, among its other crimes, used chemical weapons to kill them. Tony Blair, Colin Powell, William Shawcross, David Aaronovitch, Nick Cohen, Ann Clwyd and many others referred, in making their case, to Saddam's gassing of the Kurds in Halabja in 1988. They accused those who opposed the war of caring nothing for the welfare of the Iraqis.
Given that they care so much, why has none of these hawks spoken out against the use of unconventional weapons by coalition forces?
_______________________________
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/08/27-3

posted by Satish Sharma at 05:24 0 Comments

Saudis offer Russia secret oil deal if it drops Syria

Another  player in the war on Syria and the real reason for  it. OIL, Gas and Pipelines. 

Saudis offer Russia secret oil deal if it drops Syria

Saudi Arabia has secretly offered Russia a sweeping deal to control the global oil market and safeguard Russia’s gas contracts, if the Kremlin backs away from the Assad regime in Syria.

12:00PM BST 27 Aug 2013
The revelations come amid high tension in the Middle East, with US, British, and French warship poised for missile strikes in Syria. Iran has threatened to retaliate.
The strategic jitters pushed Brent crude prices to a five-month high of $112 a barrel. “We are only one incident away from a serious oil spike. The market is a lot tighter than people think,” said Chris Skrebowski, editor of Petroleum Review.
Leaked transcripts of a closed-door meeting between Russia’s Vladimir Putin and Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan shed an extraordinary light on the hard-nosed Realpolitik of the two sides.
Prince Bandar, head of Saudi intelligence, allegedly confronted the Kremlin with a mix of inducements and threats in a bid to break the deadlock over Syria. “Let us examine how to put together a unified Russian-Saudi strategy on the subject of oil. The aim is to agree on the price of oil and production quantities that keep the price stable in global oil markets,” he said at the four-hour meeting with Mr Putin. They met at Mr Putin’s dacha outside Moscow three weeks ago.
“We understand Russia’s great interest in the oil and gas in the Mediterranean from Israel to Cyprus. And we understand the importance of the Russian gas pipeline to Europe. We are not interested in competing with that. We can cooperate in this area,” he said, purporting to speak with the full backing of the US.
The talks appear to offer an alliance between the OPEC cartel and Russia, which together produce over 40m barrels a day of oil, 45pc of global output. Such a move would alter the strategic landscape.
The details of the talks were first leaked to the Russian press. A more detailed version has since appeared in the Lebanese newspaper As-Safir, which has Hezbollah links and is hostile to the Saudis.
As-Safir said Prince Bandar pledged to safeguard Russia’s naval base in Syria if the Assad regime is toppled, but he also hinted at Chechen terrorist attacks on Russia’s Winter Olympics in Sochi if there is no accord. “I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics next year. The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us,” he allegedly said.
Prince Bandar went on to say that Chechens operating in Syria were a pressure tool that could be switched on an off. “These groups do not scare us. We use them in the face of the Syrian regime but they will have no role in Syria’s political future.”
President Putin has long been pushing for a global gas cartel, issuing the `Moscow Declaration’ last to month “defend suppliers and resist unfair pressure”. This would entail beefing up the Gas Exporting Countries Forum (GECF), a talking shop.
Mr Skrebowski said it is unclear what the Saudis can really offer the Russians on gas, beyond using leverage over Qatar and others to cut output of liquefied natural gas (LGN). “The Qataris are not going to obey Saudi orders,” he said.
Saudi Arabia could help boost oil prices by restricting its own supply. This would be a shot in the arm for Russia, which is near recession and relies on an oil price near $100 to fund the budget.
But it would be a dangerous strategy for the Saudis if it pushed prices to levels that endangered the world’s fragile economic recovery. Crude oil stocks in the US have already fallen sharply this year. Goldman Sachs said the “surplus cushion” in global stocks built up since 2008 has been completely eliminated.
Mr Skrebowski said trouble is brewing in a string of key supply states. “Libya is reverting to war lordism. Nigerian is drifting into a bandit state with steady loss of output. And Iraq is going back to the sort of Sunni-Shia civil war we saw in 2006-2007,” he said.
The Putin-Bandar meeting was stormy, replete with warnings of a “dramatic turn” in Syria. Mr Putin was unmoved by the Saudi offer, though western pressure has escalated since then. “Our stance on Assad will never change. We believe that the Syrian regime is the best speaker on behalf of the Syrian people, and not those liver eaters,” he said, referring to footage showing a Jihadist rebel eating the heart and liver of a Syrian soldier.
Prince Bandar in turn warned that there can be “no escape from the military option” if Russia declines the olive branch. Events are unfolding exactly as he foretold.

posted by Satish Sharma at 04:59 0 Comments