Archives: Articles

By Jonathan Cook

21 December, 2012

@ Countercurrents.org

Carl Bernstein, of All the President’s Men fame, has a revealing commentary in the Guardian today, though revealing not entirely in a way he appears to understand. Bernstein highlights a story first disclosed earlier this month in the Washington Post by his former journalistic partner Bob Woodward that media mogul Rupert Murdoch tried to “buy the US presidency”.

A taped conversation shows that in early 2011 Murdoch sent Roger Ailes, the boss of his most important US media outlet, Fox News, to Afghanistan to persuade Gen David Petraeus, former commander of US forces, to run against Barack Obama as the Republican candidate in the 2012 presidential election. Murdoch promised to bankroll Petraeus’ campaign and commit Fox News to provide the general with wall-to-wall support.

Murdoch’s efforts to put his own man in the White House failed because Petraeus decided he did not want to run for office. “Tell [Ailes] if I ever ran,” Petraeus says in the recording, “but I won’t … but if I ever ran, I’d take him up on his offer.”

Bernstein is rightly appalled not just by this full-frontal attack on democracy but also by the fact that the Washington Post failed to splash with their world exclusive. Instead they buried it inside the paper’s lifestyle section, presenting it as what the section editor called “a buzzy media story that … didn’t have the broader import” that would justify a better showing in the paper.

In line with the Washington Post, most other major US news outlets either ignored the story or downplayed its significance.

We can probably assume that Bernstein wrote his piece at the bidding of Woodward, as a covert way for him to express his outrage at his newspaper’s wholesale failure to use the story to generate a much-deserved political scandal. The pair presumably expected the story to prompt congressional hearings into Murdoch’s misuse of power, parallel to investigations in the UK that have revealed Murdoch’s control of politicians and the police there.

As Bernstein observes: “The Murdoch story – his corruption of essential democratic institutions on both sides of the Atlantic – is one of the most important and far-reaching political/cultural stories of the past 30 years, an ongoing tale without equal.”

What Bernstein cannot understand is why his media masters don’t see things the way he does. He reserves his greatest dismay for “the ho-hum response to the story by the American press and the country’s political establishment, whether out of fear of Murdoch, Ailes and Fox – or, perhaps, lack of surprise at Murdoch’s, Ailes’ and Fox’s contempt for decent journalistic values or a transparent electoral process.”

But in truth neither of Bernstein’s explanations for this failure is convincing.

A far more likely reason for the US media’s aversion to the story is that it poses a danger to the Matrix-like wall of static interference generated by precisely the same media that successfully conceals the all-too-cosy relationship between the corporations (that own the media) and the country’s politicians.

The Petraeus story is disturbing to the media precisely because it tears away the façade of US democratic politics, an image carefully honed to persuade the American electorate that it chooses its presidents and ultimately decides the direction of the country’s political future.

Instead, the story reveals the charade of that electoral game, one in which powerful corporate elites manipulate the system through money and the media they own to restrict voters’ choice to two almost-identical candidates. Those candidates hold the same views on 80 per cent of the issues. Even where their policies differ, most of the differences are quickly ironed out behind the scenes by the power elites through the pressure they exert on the White House via lobby groups, the media and Wall Street.

The significance of Woodward’s story is not that it proves Rupert Murdoch is danger to democracy but rather that it reveals the absolute domination of the US political system by the global corporations that control what we hear and see. Those corporations include, of course, the owners of the Washington Post.

The saddest irony is that the journalists who work within the corporate media are incapable of seeing outside the parameters set for them by their media masters. And that includes even the most accomplished practitioners of the trade: Woodward and Bernstein.

Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His latest books are “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books). His new website is

www.jonathan-cook.net

Guardian story: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/20/bernstein-murdoch-ailes-petreaus-presidency

By Chris Marsden

21 December, 2012

WSWS.org

A United Nations Independent International Commission of Inquiry has finally admitted that a sectarian civil war is raging in Syria. Its findings are based upon extensive investigations and interviews between September 28 to December 16, 2012.

They detail massacres and gross violations of human rights that have polarised Syria between the supporters of a Sunni insurgency and those Sunnis and various minority groups that have aligned themselves with the Alawite-led Ba’athist regime out of fear that its downfall will produce a yet more brutal Sunni chauvinist alternative.

Investigators, headed by Carla del Ponte, the former chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, have interviewed more than 1,200 victims and refugees.

The report produced is a devastating indictment of the United States and other western powers, who have worked with Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar to depose of Bashar al-Assad by recruiting and aiding a Sunni insurgency overwhelmingly made up of Muslim Brotherhood supporters, Salafist and Al Qaeda-style groups. Many are foreign fighters brought to Syria with the specific aim of waging a jihad against what they conceive of as a heretical government.

The UN panel, led by Paulo Pinheiro of Brazil, states that the conflict has evolved from being a battle for political change into one that is “overtly sectarian in nature.”

“Mounting tensions have led to armed clashes between different armed groups along a sectarian divide”, with “Some minority communities, notably the Alawites and Christians”, forming “armed self-defence groups to protect their neighbourhoods from anti-Government fighters.”

Many opposition fighters “operate independently… or are affiliated to Islamist groups such as Jabhat al-Nusra”, but still coordinate their attacks with the Free Syrian Army (FSA).

With sectarian divisions affecting Sunnis, Alawites, Armenians, Christians, Druze, Palestinians, Kurds and Turkmen, “Entire communities are at risk of being forced out of the country or of being killed”. The report notes as an example that almost all 80,000 Christians who once lived in Homs, where Jabhat al-Nusra has a large presence, have fled to Damascus or Beirut.

The report’s findings are proof that that the US State Department’s decision on December 11 to designate Jabhat al-Nusra, also known as the al-Nusra front, as a Foreign Terrorist Organization was little more than a damage limitation exercise, given that the entire insurgency is dominated by it and similar groups.

At a press conference in Brussels, Pinheiro declared, “We think this is a war where no military victory is possible. It is a great illusion that providing arms to one side or the other will help end it.”

Nevertheless, arming of the opposition by Washington and its allies will continue, in anticipation that Assad’s downfall will weaken Iran and further consolidate US hegemony over the oil riches of the region. The argument has already repeatedly been made by the advocates of war that only decisive intervention now can ensure that Assad’s downfall will see his regime replaced by a democracy and prevent the danger that chemical weapons will fall into the hands of jihadist groups.

On December 17, Israel’s Haaretz reported that US cargo airplanes carrying military equipment have landed in Jordanian airports over several days and that US military forces in the country have been significantly built up.

Yesterday, US officials accused the Syrian government of firing Scud missiles against oppositionists near Maara, north of Aleppo near the Turkish border. Syria denied the claim as “untrue rumours”. The US, Germany and the Netherlands have dispatched Patriot anti-missile systems and hundreds of troops to Turkey’s border and are clearly seeking a pretext to use them. Already on December 12, the US alleged that the Syrian military had fired six Scud missiles at the Sheikh Suleiman base north of Aleppo, which had been occupied by the FSA.

While the US military build-up takes place in Jordan and on the Turkish border, propaganda efforts will continue to portray the insurgency as a democratic movement pitched against a regime that has been repeatedly accused of lying about the influence of the Islamists while itself perpetrating sectarian atrocities alongside its supporters in various unofficial Shabiha militias.

The days leading up to the publication of the UN report saw news headlines dominated by allegations of yet another massacre by pro-government forces, only this time of Alawites in the village of Agrab in Hama. Initial reports, wholly based on opposition sources and YouTube videos of people interviewed by the FSA, alleged brutal “Alawite-on-Alawite violence.”

Everyone from the New York Times to the BBC reported opposition activists stating that up to 300 people had died when pro-government militiamen besieged by rebels blew up a building where they had been holding civilians hostage, after which it had been bombed by warplanes.

However, the only news channel to send reporters to Agrab, Channel 4 in the UK, found three key witnesses who independently told the same story “to the last detail” of anti-Assad “rebels” having carried out the killing of an unknown number of Alawites. In addition, “their accounts are further backed up by at least a dozen conversations with other Alawites who had fled from Aqrab”, Alex Thomsons writes.

He describes how opposition fighters attacked Aqrab on Sunday 2 December. One witness explained, “They had long beards. It was hard to understand what they said. They weren’t dressed like normal Syrians.”

They came from the opposition stronghold of al-Houla. The FSA forces then “corralled around 500 Alawite civilians in a large red-coloured two-storey house” and held them “until the early hours of Tuesday 11 December. Nine days.”

The “rebels wanted to take the women and children to al-Houla to use them as human shields against bombardment from government forces, and they believed they would kill the remaining men.”

A delegation of villagers was sent Monday to negotiate the release of the hostages, but after four hours shooting broke out. Later, around 70 of the prisoners were taken to safety in the nearest village a mile away, while others were taken to al-Houla.

The house reported to have been destroyed by government jets still stands.

Thomsons says he has no idea of the number of casualties or whether there was a massacre, but notes, “If the government really did massacre up to 250 people from President Assad’s own Alawite sect, YouTube would be 10 feet deep in rebel videos, of the bodies, of the funerals, of the carnage. Be in no doubt about this. Yet check on YouTube—there is not a scrap of video to back their story.”

YouTube does, however, feature a number of videos of sectarian killings by the Syrian opposition, including a recent one of two allegedly Alawite men being beheaded by Syrian rebels, one of them by a child.

On the day the UN commission issued its report, the FSA also published a video report boasting of having seized control for the first time of a border crossing between the Syrian town of Rankous and the Lebanese town of Tfeil.

The aim of opening up this crossing as a key supply route pitches the FSA against Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shiite group that supports the Assad regime, and drags Lebanon ever more decisively into the Syrian conflict.

Cross border incursions take place almost daily and have led to dozens of casualties, while clashes between pro and anti-Assad forces have seen hundreds killed in border areas. Once again divisions have taken a sectarian dimension—a pattern that can repeat itself throughout the Middle East.

By Adam Parsons

21 December, 2012

@ Stwr.org

The recent climate talks in Doha were held as if in an alternative reality to distressing developments across the world. But there still remains hope and optimism because there is no possibility of preventing runaway climate change without global sharing and justice

The latest round of climate negotiations in Doha once again demonstrated the sheer lack of cooperation, goodwill and willingness – or ability – of the world’s governments to share responsibility for tackling climate change. Since the epochal failure to reach a global deal at Copenhagen in 2009, less and less attention is paid by the media and the general public to these byzantine and shadowy UN climate talks. After three years of further wrangling by governments with little to show, it required serious scrutiny from ordinary citizens to determine what was actually being agreed upon at COP18. Was it merely an agreement to make an agreement in 2015? An agreement based on emissions cuts and pledges for funding that will remain inadequate and far too late to deal with the climate chaos that is already upon us? And one that won’t come into effect, in any case, until 2020?

As usual there was no shortage of analysis pointing out the growing gap between evidence of global warming and action to tackle its causes and consequences. Dozens more reports were published that highlighted the dangers of sustained inaction, not least UNEP’s Emissions Gap report that argued it will be impossible to cap global warming at 2 degrees Celsius if present trends continue – thus making it unfeasible to wait until 2020 to begin stringent emissions reductions. There was were even dire predictions about future climate breakdown from within the corridors of power, not least from the International Energy Agency, the CIA, a multinational business consultancy (PwC), and – with the worst prognostications of all – the World Bank.

These alarm bells from the establishment were accompanied by first-hand evidence of an already climate damaged planet, with 2012 marked by extreme weather events and climatic disasters across large parts of the world. This included the flash melting of Greenland’s surface ice; historic droughts in Russia, Australia and the US; dramatic flooding in the Philippines, Bangladesh, Thailand and China; and of course the recent devastation caused by Hurricane Sandy, as well as Typhoon Bopha that fatefully struck the Philippines as COP18 delegates were in mid-negotiation. Just as the climate talks got underway, the Global Climate Risk Index revealed that many of the worst natural disasters of last year were also the most severe ever experienced by those countries affected. Less developed countries remain generally more affected than industrialised nations, the Index reported, while the overwhelming majority of disaster-related deaths are in the developing world.

No deal to save our planet

Yet the climate talks were held as if in an alternative reality to these distressing developments across the world. Poor countries may well have won historic recognition for the losses and damage they face from climate change, but the US made sure that there would be no rights to compensation and no legal liability involved, and there is no agreement on where the money will come from or how it will be dispersed. Promises on finance to help developing countries adapt to and mitigate climate change have already been broken, despite the pledge for $30bn by 2012 being a paltry sum compared to urgent needs in the world’s poorest regions. No concrete sums of money were promised for 2013-20, no commitments were made to boost the Green Climate Fund, and nothing at all was pledged from rich countries in terms of technology transfer.

On emissions cuts, civil society leaders widely decried a weakened deal that will do nothing to stop global carbon emissions from continuing to rise indefinitely. The Kyoto Protocol has been extended until 2020, but now only includes the EU and a handful of other industrialised nations that together represent just 15% of world greenhouse gas emissions. The US never ratified Kyoto; several countries including Canada and Japan have reneged on their obligations under the treaty and shamelessly pulled out; and major developing country polluters like China and India remain excluded from the agreement. And of course the new carbon-cutting targets in the second commitment period of the Protocol are nowhere near what the science is calling for. The EU’s pledge of reducing emissions by 20% compared to 1990 levels, for example, will in reality be only 12% owing to their 8% emissions reduction during the first Kyoto Protocol period.

In sum, current commitments and ‘voluntary’ pledges remain at least 40% short of what the planet needs to avoid 4 degrees or more of warming (compared to pre-industrial temperatures); there is no sound basis for an “ambitious” and “equitable” global climate deal to be agreed by 2015, as promised by governments at Durban last year; and humanity remains on course for a ‘4°C warmer world’ of catastrophic climate change and environmental breakdown – as vividly pictured for everyone in the 84-page report courtesy of the World Bank.

Battling the ‘dirty fuel’ lobby

The only winners from the latest round of climate talks are the fossil fuel companies and business interests that are given a green light to continue profiting from the climate crisis. There are billions of dollars to be made by investing in carbon trading schemes and other market-based innovations that campaigners call ‘false solutions’, which includes carbon offsets and biodiversity offsets, payments for environmental services, and various financial mechanisms proposed to reduce deforestation and degradation in developing countries (all schemes that were introduced as part of the Kyoto Protocol negotiations).

Meanwhile, as the Arctic sea ice drops to its lowest level ever recorded, companies are rushing to exploit new oil and gas reserves with the full backing of governments. Rather than heed the IEA’s trenchant warning that two-thirds of the world’s proven fossil fuel reserves cannot be used without risking dangerous climate change and should be left in the ground, governments and international agencies continue to subsidise ‘dirty fuels’ at record-breaking levels and prolong the shift to renewable alternatives. The US in particular is busy celebrating its new status as the imminent world leader in fossil-fuel output, thanks to its massive exploitation of highly polluting energy resources like shale gas and Canadian tar sands. Outside the bubble of UN climate negotiations, there is no indication that the world’s most powerful nations are heeding the IEA’s prediction that their continued increases in fossil fuel consumption will result in a long-term average global temperature increase of 3.6 degrees Celsius. (Again, cue the dystopia envisioned by the World Bank’s ‘4°C warmer world’ report).

These were the clear economic interests behind the brinkmanship and deadlock during the Doha climate negotiations, which many observers pointed out were akin to the world trade talks made famous by the same city – and now entering their 20th year of stalemate and failure. It was also widely pointed out how inappropriate it was to choose the immensely oil-rich Gulf emirate of Doha as a host country for talks on halting global pollution, not least considering it is the largest per capita emitter of greenhouse gases in the world. Indeed, the president of the UN summit was no less than Abdullah bin Hamad al-Attiyah, the Qatari deputy prime minister and former president of Opec, who was spotted shortly before the summit at the ‘Oil & Money 2012′ conference in London where he extolled the virtues of hydrofracking and other new fossil fuel extraction technologies. Alden Meyer of the Union of Concerned Scientists said that the resulting two-week summit was more like a trade fair than a science-driven or environmental discussion, in which “you saw on display the power of these industries and their short term profit motivation to dominate the governments of the world”.

The climate talks stalemate

How then is it possible to reach a multilateral agreement on limits to carbon emissions when fossil fuel corporations are already preparing to burn more fossil fuels than the planet can absorb without becoming unliveable? When the political leadership worldwide is addicted to fossil fuels and works on behalf of short-term business interests? When policymakers are committed only to increasing economic growth through ever-expanding global trade, and are not even interested in the wholesale reorganisation of the world economy that is needed to curb excessive consumption, transition to a low-carbon development trajectory, and ensure that all countries can live sustainably within ecological limits?

The only common sense that is heard during the endless discussions on a post-Kyoto treaty comes from the beleaguered delegates of the world’s poorest nations – those worst affected by and least to blame for climate change – or else from among the voices of civil society activists who are carefully monitored on the side-lines by state police. It is not in the main conference hall that the root of the climate talks stalemate is rationally discussed, but in the side events and civil society forums that receive scant media attention during the negotiations. Here, global cooperation and shared sacrifice is understood as impossible to achieve so long as governments prize, above all things, international competitiveness and trade liberalisation – regardless of the cavalier waste of resources and pillaging of the Earth that is necessary to achieve an ever higher percentage of economic growth.

Ever since the first Kyoto Protocol discussions began over 15 years ago, the same underlying conflict of interest has been reframed in any number of articles and reports: do we continue to prioritise the unrestrained extraction, transportation and consumption of the Earth’s finite resources, or do we cooperatively manage the global economy to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions and leave the planet intact for our children? The worsening state of the environment, extreme weather events and the consensus from scientists on increasing global warming underlines how both approaches are incompatible. Governments of both the North and South may wish otherwise as they continue to compete and haggle over how much of the Earth’s ecological space they can occupy and exploit, but in the not-too-distant future there can be no negotiation with Mother Nature on her limits of endurance.

There still remains great hope amid all the naysaying, however, because there is no possibility of preventing runaway climate change without the implementation of global sharing and justice. To understand this bold statement in simple terms just requires an appreciation of how the principle of sharing is fundamental to the negotiations for a real and binding climate agreement. The enduring tension at the heart of climate talks is centred on how the ecological space of the world is shared between nations, with the US and other Northern countries not wanting to give up their unfair share of the world’s atmospheric space and resources, while the emerging capitalist economies of the South claim their equal right to exploit the Earth’s atmosphere and resources as they develop. Hence there is a considerable focus on equity in climate negotiations, which is a principle that is officially recognised in the UN Climate Convention.

Sharing the world’s atmosphere

As Martin Khor of the South Centre has explained in several papers, the only way to fix a global emissions reduction goal is by having a framework for the equitable sharing of both the ‘atmospheric space’ and the ‘development space’. In practical terms this requires an effective sharing of resources and responsibilities on an international basis, such as the sharing of mitigation efforts (with rich countries taking the lead owing to their historical debt of carbon emissions), the support that must accompany this sharing (climate finance and technology transfer), and the shared vision that is necessary for nations to agree upon a fair allocation of the remaining carbon space in the world (according to rights and responsibilities). Equity is “the gateway to environmental ambition”, Khor reasons, and the sharing of climate change mitigation efforts is “a critical piece of the puzzle”.

But an effective sharing of the world’s atmospheric space could also have dramatic implications for the distribution of world resources. This is clear when we consider that climate change is an economic as much as an environmental issue, because emissions of carbon dioxide are obviously linked to economic growth. If the world’s nations are to truly agree upon a fair sharing of the world’s atmospheric space, it would ultimately mean that governments have to accept limits on their economic space or, in effect, on how much of the world’s resources their nation consumes. And as we know, there are currently massive differences in the consumption patterns and carbon emissions of people living in rich and poor countries. A small proportion of the world’s population – around 20% – currently consumes and wastes the vast majority of global resources. At the same time, the poorest 20% of the world’s population still lacks the basic resources they need to survive.

Hence the challenge of tackling climate change is intertwined with the other great challenge of the 21st century: to end poverty and achieve more equilibrium in global consumption levels. How else can the world agree upon everyone’s equal share to the atmosphere, unless we also agree upon everyone’s right to a fair share of the world’s resources? It’s in this respect that global warming has the potential to become a ‘great equaliser’, because the only way to find a solution to our environmental problems is through fundamentally rethinking the management of an economic system built upon endless consumption and competition over scarce resources. Or to put it another way, we cannot tackle climate change without simplifying our demands on the planet and learning how to share the produce of the earth more fairly.

This may be a simple framing of a highly complex issue, but it means there can be no real progress on agreeing a global climate deal until equity and justice is placed at the heart of negotiations, no matter how much developed nations and vested interests seek to undermine or ignore these basic principles. It is therefore essential that millions more people of goodwill around the world grasp the basic message of ‘climate justice’ campaigners: that the struggle for human rights and the struggle to avert catastrophic climate change are two sides of the same coin. Because of course the real hope for change lies not in the corridors of power, but in the mass engagement of ordinary citizens around the twin crises of inequality and climate change. And as the charade of climate negotiations is making increasingly clear, the only way of addressing both of these crises is through sharing.

Written by Adam Parsons, the editor at Share The World’s Resources, who can be contacted at adam(at)stwr.org.

Foreign Ministry: Syria Holds All who Leveled Accusations at it for Situation in al-Yarmouk Responsible for the Catastrophe

Dec 20, 2012

Damascus, (SANA)_Foreign and Expatriates Ministry said that ”It was not surprising for Syria that the parties known for their hostility to the Syrian government adopted overturned stances and distorted facts regarding the situation that has emerged in al-Yarmouk Camp over the last few days, due to the attack that the Jabhat al-Nusra mounted, backed by other terrorist groups.”

In two identical letters addressed to the head of the UN Security Council and the UN Secretary-General on Thursday, the Ministry said that these parties have wrongly held the Syrian government responsible for the situation in the Camp, with the backing of biased media that has misled the public opinion.”

The Ministry expressed condemnation to all who allowed themselves to point an accusing finger at Syria, adding that Syria holds them responsible for the catastrophe that the armed terrorist groups caused in al-Yarmouk refugee camp, as it stresses that it has committed, since the Nakba of the Palestinian people, to receiving the Palestinian refugees and treated them as its own people, granting them all the prerogatives that the Syrian citizens enjoy.

The letters added that ”Syria has also been positive with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), imposing no restrictions whatsoever on its activities, as attested by UNRWA officials inside and outside Syria.”

”Sadly, the accusations about the situation in al-Yarmouk Camp are leveled at the wrong side, instead of punishing and condemning the terrorist groups that has been threatening the Palestinians’ security and stability, not to mention killing many,” the letters said, citing Jabhat al-Nusra latest attack on al-Yarmouk camp using mortar and machineguns, which led to displacing thousands of Palestinians and the destruction of a hospital and a mosque inside the camp.

The letters said that the Syrian Arab army refrained from entering the camp, despite the locals’ pleas after hundreds of terrorist members entered the camp to preserve the Palestinians’ blood and property.

“Syria has maintained contacts with the Palestinian official and non-official political figures and movements for not involving the Palestinian people in the Syrian events, and to keep them away from the terrorists who have worked to implicate them since the outset of events,” the letters said.

”Syria has reiterated the principle of not involving the Palestinians in the events in Syria during the latest visit of the UNRWA’s Commissioner-General and has offered, in cooperation with all Palestinian and international bodies, all kinds of aid and facilitations to ease the suffering of the Palestinian refugees due to Jabhat al-Nusra and its allies from the so-called ‘Free Army” occupation of al-Yarmouk Camp.”

The letters said that “Syria calls upon the UN and its Secretary-General to urge the countries who have been backing terrorist groups and prodded them to occupy al-Yarmouk Camp, for well-known goals, to pressure them to leave the camp immediately to save the lives of the Palestinian refugees, and to put a stop to the killing and destruction that these groups leave behind, instead of adopting cheap propaganda at the expense of the Palestinian blood, because the it was the terrorists who attacked the camp, and they are utterly responsible for this crime.”

Syria Crowned Champion of West Asian Football Federation Cup after Beating Iraq 1-0

Dec 20, 2012

KUWAIT, (SANA)- Syrian national football team on Thursday was crowned champion of West Asia cup after beating Iraq 1-0 in the final match held in Kuwait.

The first half of the match ended with tie 0-0 as the two teams didn’t score, but at the 75th minute of the match Syria scored through player Ahmad al-Saleh.

The Syrian national team reached the final match of the championship three time in 2000 in Jordan where it lost 0-1 with Iran, and in 2004 in Iran where it lost with the host country 0-1 and the third time here where Syria won the title.

Syria reached this final match after beating Bahrain 3-2 in the penalty kicks, while Iraq reached the final match after beating Oman 2-0.

Terrorists Killed, Their Weapons and Vehicles Destroyed

Dec 20, 2012

PROVINCES, (SANA) – Units of the Armed Forces on Thursday pursued terrorist groups in al-Husseiniyeh town in Damascus Countryside, killed many of their members and destroyed their weapons.

An official source told SANA reporter that the army units killed a number of terrorists near the old bakery and destroyed a mortar and a car carrying terrorists and weapons.

The source added that another army unit destroyed a hideout for terrorists in al-Bashawat Street in the town, killing and injuring some of them.

A vehicle equipped with a machinegun was also destroyed.

Army Units Carry out Operations agaisnt Terrorists in Damascus Countryside

Units of the armed forces continued crackdown on the armed terrorist groups in Hejjira, Dhiyabieh, Bahdaliyyeh and Sayyida Zeinab towns in Damascus countryside, killing and injuring many terrorists.

An official source told SANA that an armed forces’ unit eliminated a terrorist group near al-Baath housing units in Hejjira. The terrorists Ahmad al-Haj, Haitham al-Louaisi, Mohammad Othman, Tareq al-Doumani and a Palestinian-Jordanian terrorists called Wael were identified among the deed.

The source added that another unit carries out an operation in al- Dhiyabieh in which it killed a number of terrorists and injured others and destroyed a hideout. The terrorist Suhail Dandash was identified among the dead.

A unit of the armed forces also clashed with a terrorist group near al-Mustaqbal crossroad in Sayyida Zeinab. A number of terrorists were killed and others injured in the operation.

The source added that a number of terrorists were killed and a motorcycle for terrorists was destroyed near al-Hassan Mosque in al- Bahdaliyyeh.

A field hospital with stolen equipment and medicine was discovered.

Terrorists Killed, Amounts of Weapons and Ammunition Seized in Homs

A unit of the Armed Forces destroyed a machinegun-equipped vehicle and killed all the terrorists inside it near the crossroad to al-Ghajar village in the countryside of al-Rastan in Homs province.

SANA reporter quoted a source in the province as saying that the army also killed a number of terrorists inside a hideout in the same area, indicating that the leader of the group Khaled Habib and terrorists Ahmad Mohammad Khattab and Ayman al-Deek were identified among the dead.

Authorities on Wednesday night seized an amount of weapons and ammunition in an abandoned farm in al-Sultaniyeh neighborhood in Homs city.

A source in the province told SANA reporter that the seized weapons included four sniper rifles, five Cobra rocket engines, a hunting rifle, an explosive device, a mask and different types of ammunition.

Clashes between Terrorist Groups over Dividing Stolen Goods

Two terrorist groups clashed near al-Hassan and al-Hussein Mosque in al-Marjeh neighborhood in Aleppo over dividing goods they stole from citizens’ houses.

18 terrorists were killed and injured in the clash. A leader of a terrorist group, nicknamed Karmo al-Shaghel, was identified among the dead.

Armed Forces Pursue Terrorist Groups in Aleppo, Inflict Heavy Losses Upon them

The Armed Forces carried out a number of qualitative operations against terrorist sites in Aleppo and its countryside, inflicting heavy losses upon the terrorists and destroying a number of vehicles used to transfer weapons and ammunitions.

An official source told SANA reporter that the Armed Forces targeted two terrorist sites in Rasm al-abboud area in Aleppo countryside and destroyed them completely, killed all terrorists in them and destroyed four vehicles used to transfer weapons and ammunitions.

The Armed Forces targeted terrorist sites in al-Deirineh, al-Sfeira, al-Oweijeh, Maara, al-Artiq and Hayan areas and killed several terrorists and destroyed their vehicles.

In qualitative operations, the Armed Forces inflicted heavy losses upon the terrorists in Bustan al-Qasr, al-Lairamon, Qadi Askar and Karm al-Maiser in Aelppo city.

Upon the Directives of President al-Assad, Minister Azzam Congratulates Patriarch Yazigi 

Dec 20, 2012

DAMASCUS, (SANA) – Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch and all the East, John X Yazigi, led on Thursday thanksgiving prayer at the Patriarchal Monument at the Mariamete Cathedral in Damascus.

Later, Minister of Presidential Affairs, Mansour Azzam, upon the directives of President Bashar al-Assad, congratulated Patriarch Yazigi being elected a successor for late Patriarch Ignatius Iv Hazim at the Cathedral in Damascus.

Minister Azzam expressed wishes of success for Patriarch Yazigi in serving the Patriarchate.

In a speech, Patriarch Yazigi said, “We have lived on this land and we will live with our Muslim bothers and cooperate with them to serve humankind and humanity, rejecting all forms of western interference in our homeland.”

Grand Mufti of the Republic, Dr. Ahmad Badreddin Hassoun, also congratulated Patriarch Yazigi.

The Grand Mufti stressed that Syria is the cradle of heavenly messages and from Syria messengers preached belief to the whole world.

He called on the Syrians to work as one hand for security and stability to be restored.

Russia’s Ambassador in Damascus Azmatullah Kulmohammadov congratulated Patriarch Yazigi.

The Russian Ambassador stressed that Russia exerts all efforts possible to realize peace in Syria and enhance national unity.

People’s Assembly Discusses Draft Law on Regulating Dental Association Work,  Davutoglu Statements on Syrian Turkmen Irrational and Irresponsible

Dec 20, 2012

Damascus, (SANA)_The People’s Assembly discussed during its session on Thursday, chaired by Speaker Mohammad Jihad al-Lahham, the report of the Constitutional, Legislative and Service Affairs Committees on the draft law regulating the Dental Association’s work.

The Assembly approved the articles from 1 to 16 of the draft law, and voted in favor of the amendment made by the Committees to the definition of the Dental Association General Conference stated in the first article.

MP Mohammad Abbas Turkmani described the statements of Turkey’s Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, in which he considered Syria’s Turkmen part of the Turkish fabric, as irrational and irresponsible and display a lack of knowledge about geography, indicating that the Turkmen in Syria are Syrians who are ready to defend their country.

Christmas prayers at the Lady Church in Damascus for Peace in Syria

Dec 20, 2012

DAMASCUS, (SANA) – Patriarchal Syriac Mar Afram Choir staged on Thursday a Christmas evening at the Lady Church in Damascus, including Christmas prayers and meditations for peace in Syria.

The choir performed Christmas psalms and poems from Damascus which is “the city of the Joy of God” according to the Holy Bible.

 

The choir was established in 1980 by Patriarch of Antioch and all the East, Mar Ignatius Zakka I Iwas.

Al-Maliki Calls for Bolstering Moderation, Discarding Extremism in Syria

Dec 20, 2012

Baghdad, (SANA)_Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki expressed grave concern over the ongoing violence in Syria, calling upon the Syrian opposition groups to work for finding a political solution that realizes the aspirations of the Syrian people.

During his meeting on Wednesday with a delegation from the opposition National Coordination Committee headed by Dr. Haitham Manna, al-Maliki said that ”efforts should be synchronized to bolster moderation and discard extremism in Syria, as it creates problems rather than solves them.” He stressed that the Iraqi government has offered humanitarian aid which it intends to increase without any political goals, as admitted by international organizations which hailed the Iraqi role that distanced itself from the internal conflict. The delegation’s members expressed concern over the increasing violence, underlining the necessity of discarding violence and encouraging moderation, and that the solution be political, not military.

Putin: We Call for Solution to Halt Violence, Syrians Are to Determine Their Future

Dec 20, 2012

MOSCOW, (SANA) – Russian President, Vladimir Putin, on Thursday stressed that the Syrian people are the only ones to determine their destiny and the future of their country.

Speaking at a press conference in Moscow, Putin reiterated that his country calls for a peaceful solution to the crisis in Syria that brings violence in Syria to a halt and prevents the collapse and the fragmentation of the Syrian state.

He said that Russia has no private interests in Syria and cares only about Syria’s stability and future.

The Russian president noted that the Syrians should agree on how to live, how to ensure their security and stability and how to build their state, “after which we can move to change, not vice versa.”

He astressed that it is futile to base agreement on military victory, adding that Russia is not concerned about its interests which are not many in the region, but is rather concerned about searching for a solution to the crisis in Syria.

Russian Diplomatic Source.. US side Gives Gesture after each meeting that Russia has change its stance and approached the US

Russia Today site quoted an informed  diplomatic source as announcing today that Russia renewed support to the mission of the UN envoy to Syria Lakhdar Brahimi where agreement has been made to hold a tripartite meeting among Deputy Foreign Minister of Russia Michael Bogdanov, the US  Deputy Secretary of State William Burns and Brahimi in Geneva.

The diplomatic source criticized the US side’s giving gesture, following each meeting, to media that  Russia has changed its stance and it is approaching  Washington, Saying  “We don’t want parade stances.. we are concerned about Geneva tripartite meeting to know the outcome of Brahimi mission and to work for the halt of violence in Syria.”

It added that Brahimi informed Russia about his determination to  go to Damascus and meet President Bashar al-Assad, clarifying that Moscow informed Brahimi that its representatives are  ready for Geneva meeting after he completes his visit to Damascus to inform the Russian and US sides of the outcome of his discussions in Damascus.

Lavrov: Russia Refuses to Recognize Doha Coalition

Russian Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov, said that Russia refuses to recognize the ‘Syrian Opposition Coalition’, considering that there is no need to recognize anyone as Russia is working with all parties which represent specific groups from the Syrian opposition.

”It is not about recognition..The most important thing is pushing everyone in one direction, ” Lavrov said in an interview with Euronews TV on Thursday, expressing Russia’s readiness to work with all opposition groups that arise on the Syrian arena with a similar perspective.

The Russian foreign minister pointed to attempts to drag the Palestinian refugees in Syria into getting involved in the conflict there.

Russian Foreign Ministry: Statements Provoking Terrorism in Syria Dangerous, Unconditional National Dialogue only Way to Realize Syrians’ Aspirations

Russian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Alexander Lukashevich stressed on Thursday that his country considers the statements which call for encouraging terrorist activities in Syria as dangerous and criminal, warning of the repercussions of the continuation of the opposition’s rejection of constructive efforts and boycotting dialogue with the Syrian Government.

In a statement quoted by Russia Today website, Lukashevich expressed regret over the continuation of western and Arab media in exerting immense psychological pressure to destabilize the Syrian state institutions through broadcasting fabricated reports on a decisive victory of the armed groups as they acquired man-potable air defense systems (MANPADS) and deploying patriot missiles along the Turkish-Syrian borders.

He reiterated the call on all foreign players to stop moral and financial support to the armed groups in Syria, warning that such support would only pave the way for destroying Syria and increasing the numbers of victims.

He added that Russia believes that achieving the legitimate aspirations of the Syrian people is possible only through political peaceful means, national dialogue and unconditional negotiations.

He warned that the situation in Syria has become more complicated as gunmen are seeking to use civilians as human shields after being dismissed from some neighborhoods in Damascus countryside by the government forces, citing al-Yarmouk Camp for Palestinian refugees in southern Damascus as an example.

People of al-Yarmouk Camp Demand Departure of Terrorist Groups

Dec 20, 2012

DAMASCUS, (SANA)- Residents of al-Yarmouk Camp in Damascus staged a massive protest on Thursday expressing their rejection of the armed terrorist groups.

The participants entered the Camp and chanted slogans demanding that the terrorist groups get out of it.

American SEP Secretary: US, EU Countries Take Further Steps for More Direct Intervention in Syria

Dec 20, 2012

PRAGUE, (SANA) – The National Secretary of the Socialist Equality Party (SEP) in the US, Joseph Kishore, warned that the United States and the major European powers this week have taken a number of steps to more directly intervene in Syria to bring down the advanced governing system in it.

In an article published on the Czech Communist Youth Union website, Kishore said Syria “is seen as a linchpin in a broader drive to redraw the borders of the Middle East.”

Kishore added that “Syria, a relatively advanced country with one of the highest life expectancies in the Middle East, is being driven relentlessly backwards,” noting that “the principle responsibility for this situation lies with the imperialist powers” which have worked since the beginning of the events in Syria in March, 2011 on providing support to the terrorist forces led by al-Qaeda affiliated Jabhat al-Nusra.

“The US has worked relentlessly to advance its own interests, relying on the most right-wing and reactionary forces, including Al Qaeda-linked organizations, led by the Al-Nusra Front,” Kishore highlighted.

He pointed out that Washington’s recent move to officially designate the Jabhat al-Nusra as a terrorist organization “is intended in part to cover over the fact that it has worked closely with the organization for months, helping build it up into the most important fighting force of the rebels.”

Further in this regard comes the NATO’s deployment of the Patriot missiles in Turkey, which Kishore considered as a serious escalation of military tension saying that “the missile systems can be used against warplanes and missiles to provide air cover for oppositional forces or establish a no-fly zone along the border, both precursors to direct military action.”

“While deployed under the pretext of defense against a possible Syrian attack on Turkey, the move is, in fact, a significant escalation of the US war drive,” he added.

Indian Newspaper: The US Fully Aware of al-Qaeda Presence in Syria and Overlooks Its Arming

Dec 20, 2012

NEW DELHI, (SANA)- The Hindu newspaper of India stressed the US full awareness of the presence of al-Qaeda terrorists in Syria since April, 2011 when a massacre was committed against Syrian soldiers by so-called ‘Jihadis’.

An article written by Prem Shankar Jha revealed that “the U.S. has been fully aware of the presence of al-Qaeda in the so-called Free Syrian Army since April 20, 2011 when Jihadis captured a truck (or Armoured Personnel Carrier) near Dera’a, and killed all the 18 or 20 soldiers it was carrying not by shooting them but by cutting their throats in the approved Islamic manner.”

Despite all the evidence on the undoubted presence of al-Qaeda members in the ranks of the armed groups in Syria, The Hindu said “the Obama administration has steadfastly chosen to believe that the jihadis make up only ‘a tiny fraction’ of the Free Syrian Army.”

The U.S. administration “has continued to provide FSA with logistical support, that is, satellite-based information about Syrian troop and VIP movements, and look the other way while Qatar and Saudi Arabia have provided it with guns and mounted pick-up trucks, mortars and RPGs,” the newspaper added.

Shankar Jha refuted the U.S. and Western claims on unawareness of the presence of al-Qaeda in Syria, saying that history tends to repeat itself as the United States and its European allies are about to provide “air and sea support” to the armed groups in Syria seeking a new war through “preparing another Gulf of Tonkin incident, the faked attack on a U.S. warship that triggered the Vietnam war.”

He mocked the US and the West’s “expressions of concern” for the Syrian people, saying they “ring hollow when they come from countries that did not hesitate to invade Iraq after fabricating the same pretext they are thinking of using now in Syria.” The writer cited videos posted by the armed terrorist groups themselves showing that “the armed opposition in Syria has been sliding inexorably into the hands of radical Islamists.”

“Thousands of foreign fighters have poured into Syria from Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, and places as far apart as Pakistan and Chechnya,” Shankar Jha said in the article published on Wednesday.

The article referred to interviews broadcast by the Syrian television with numerous young men captured in Homs and elsewhere, “who gave graphic descriptions of how they had been recruited by al-Qaeda to fight for Islam” in Syria. It also made reference to YouTube videos posted by the armed groups showing their members executing captured Syrian soldiers and civilians “in the approved manner”.

Shankar Jha stressed that this “make-believe game” of the West and particularly the US was brought to an end when a Libyan ship docked in a Turkish port in September 2012 with 400 tons of weapons for the armed groups in Syria. This shipment contained SA-7 portable anti-aircraft missiles and Rocket Propelled Grenades.

When interviewed, the article said, the captain of the ship admitted that he belonged to an organization that reported directly to the Libyan government. “As if that was not disturbing enough,” the article added, citing also a report by the New York Times on October 10, which affirmed that most of the weapons that had been supplied by Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia had gone to hard line Islamist groups in Syria.

Syrian Consulting Center for Studies and Human Rights Calls for Not Thrusting Palestinians into War in Syria

Dec 20, 2012

DAMASCUS, (SANA) – The Syrian Consulting Center for Studies and Human Rights called upon the residents at the Palestinian camps to keep fully alert to foil the scheme which aims at diverting the Palestinians away from their battle and main demands through attempts to thrust some of them in the current proxy war launched against Syria on behalf of Israel.

In a statement issued on Thursday, the Center called upon the international community and all humanitarian and human rights organizations to break their silence towards the events in Syria and denounce the destructive attack targeting it, particularly by Erdogan’s government which harbors death squads of extremists and sends them to spread destruction in Syria.

Sheikh Aql of Muslim Muwahideen Hussein Jarbou’ Passes away

Dec 20, 2012

SWEIDA, (SANA)- Ministry of al-Awqaf (Religious Endowments) and Sheikhdom of Muslim Muwahhideen on Wednesday announced the death of Sheikh Aql (leader) of the Muslim Muwahhideen community in Syria, Hussein Jarbou’, who died Wednesday evening at the age of 87 after suffering from disease.

In a statement to SANA, First Sheikh Aql of the community, Hikmat al-Hejri, hailed the national stances of late sheikh Jarbou’, saying that the deceased was known for his calls for amity and peace and adherence to national unity and dialogue.

Sheikh Hussein Ahmad Jarbou’ was born in 1925 and had been the Sheikh Aql of the Muslim Muwahideen community since 1965 after the death of his father. He left behind three sons and seven daughters.

Joint Military Units form the Russian Navy to Conduct Drills near Syrian Coast

Dec 20, 2012

MOSCOW, (SANA)_ An official at the Russian General Staff announced on Wednesday that joint units from the North Sea, the Baltic and the Black Sea Fleets will conduct military drills near the Syrian coast by the end of December.

The source added that naval units from the North Sea and the Baltic Sea Fleets headed to the Eastern Mediterranean where a group of warships from the Black Sea Fleet are positioned.

The source added that the warships will train on military operations near the Syrian coast, indicating that the Black Sea Fleet warships are ready to leave to the Mediterranean.

Syria and Iran.. Linking among Executive Institutions, Economic and Trade sectors to Boost Syria Steadfastness in Face of Terrorism

Dec 20, 2012

TEHRAN , (SANA)-Syrian Ambassador in Tehran Adnan Mahmoud discussed on Thursday with Advisor to the Vice President of Iran Hassan Kazemi work steps to face the economic war against Syria, following up and executing the economic and trade agreements which were signed in Damascus lately.

During the meeting, both sides underlined the need for linking among the executive institutions of the two countries along with the service, trade and economic sectors in order to achieve tangible outcomes, boost the Syrian steadfastness in the face of the terrorist war which not only target Syria, but the resistance in the region.

Kazemi affirmed that Iran decided to suspend the laws and procedures to let the Syrian products and goods enter the Iranian market and give all needed facilitations to exchange the products smoothly between the two countries.

He renewed his country’s support to Syria, as leadership and people, in combating terrorism, backed by money and weapon from the West, the US and their regional tools.

Syria and Iran recently agreed to boost cooperation in the economic, trade, financial, energy, oil and gas sectors as well as exchanging medicine and food products.

Families of 100 Martyrs Honored in Hama

Dec 19, 2012

HAMA, (SANA) – A ceremony was held to honor the families of 100 martyrs in al-Rabiy’a town in Hama province. The ceremony came in appreciation of the martyrs’ role in foiling the conspiracy which aims at undermining Syria’s stability and security. Secretary of al-Baath Arab Socialist Party branch in Hama, Jihad Murad, expressed pride in the martyrs who sacrificed their lives for the sake of defending the homeland and preserving its dignity.

In turn, Governor of Hama, Anas al-Naem stressed that the ceremony aimed at expressing appreciation for the sons of the martyrs who responded to the call of duty and sacrificed their souls to protect Syria’s unity.

He underlined the efforts exerted to fulfill the needs of the martyrs’ families, indicating that a special office was formed to follow up on solving their problems.

Sheikh Ali Mikail elaborated the sacrifices of the Armed Forces to foil the conspiracy hatched against Syria and its unity, stressing that Syria will achieve victory over its enemies.

Father of martyr Major Haitham Awad expressed pride in the martyrdom of his son and other martyrs in the town to safeguard the homeland.

Syrian Researcher Documents Biodiversity of Wild Life in Syria in 500-hour Video

Dec 19, 2012

TARTOUS, (SANA) – Researcher Iyad al-Salim from al-Sheikh Badr area in Tartous province documented with his camera the biodiversity of wild life in Syria in a 500-hour video ready for display.

Al-Salim, who obtained an engineering certificate from London University, continues his project to document his discoveries about the wild life in Syria and add them to his archive of Syrian life.

In a statement to SANA, al-Salim said that he intends to launch an satellite channel on environment in Syria in Arabic and English languages. “Despite the fact that Syria covers a small area, it can be described as a microcosm with a large variety of coastal, mountainous, semi-desert and subtropical environments,” he added. He pointed out that his passion for photography since he was very young enabled him to take amazing shots of coastal nature where he grew up through his journeys with his friends.

Al-Salim added that he was motivated in his exploration and documentation project by the lack of scientific references about the Syrian environment after he visited many libraries while studying in London and inspected the scientific principles adopted in documenting the wild life of each country.

 

He noted that his work was not limited to the coastal area, rather he toured a number of Syrian provinces. Researcher al-Salim created 17 pages titled “Wild Life in Syria” on social networking sites in order to enable visitors to browse these pages in an organized and classified way and get acquainted with the Syrian nature.

Minister of Water Resources: Appropriate Solutions to Ensure Clean Drinking Water to All Citizens

Dec 19, 2012

DAMASCUS, (SANA) – Minister of Water Resources, Bassam Hanna, stressed the need for finding appropriate solutions to the difficulties facing the implementation of water projects and looking for alternatives.

Meeting technicians and workers at the Ministry, the minister called for effective study of the current situation of surface and ground water sources to ensure and provide all citizens with sufficient and clean drinking water.

He underlined the importance of examining data submitted by water institutions in all provinces to reach accurate information and take the appropriate measures in terms of producing water from traditional and non-traditional sources.

 

By Nile Bowie

21 December 2012

The ever-changing political landscapes of the Korean Peninsula never fail to offer stark contrasts. To the north, a somber December is spent mourning the forefathers of the communist dynasty under the helm of a boy-king and his advisers. To the south, voters have elected the nation’s first female president, the daughter of South Korea’s iconic former leader, Park Chung-hee. While their circumstances and rise to power cannot be more dissimilar, both Kim Jong-un and Park Geun-hye both derive some degree of public support through channeling the nostalgia of their parent’s legacies. In South Korea, one of the world’s most rapidly ageing societies, Park relied heavily on the elderly for her support base, who associate her with the economic prosperity brought in under her father’s rule, in much the same way as northerners regard the times of Kim il-Sung. As the new president prepares to take office in February 2013, many among South Korea’s left leaning youth see Park Geun-hye as an enabler of status quo conservatism veiled behind a thin liberal facade.

Park is widely credited with resuscitating legitimacy back into the ruling Saenuri party, which has garnered record-setting disapproval ratings under incumbent President Lee Myung-bak. Money laundering scandals, tax evasion, and accusations of embezzlement have followed the outgoing President Lee, who has come down hard on dissenters by jailing activists and artists who have criticized his rule. Lee is most responsible for dismantling Seoul’s liberal approach to North Korea as seen through the “Sunshine Policy” of previous administrations, at the cost of nearly reigniting the Korean war after a series of provocative live fire exchanges in disputed territorial waters in 2010 that saw the North shell the South’s Yeonpyeong island, and the sinking of a South Korean naval vessel. Despite running on the conservative ticket, Park has steered clear of openly advocating Lee’s hardline policies toward Pyongyang in her campaign rhetoric. Although an unpredictable North Korea looms just 70km from Seoul, domestic economic issues are the most immediate focus of the South Korean voter.

Leading a “Chaebol Republic”

An odious brand of crony-corporatism has prevailed in the South Korean economy, spearheaded by the chaebol, large-scale conglomerates like Hyundai, LG, and Samsung. While these recognizable brands have indeed brought much wealth and opportunity to the southern half of the peninsula, Koreans on the lower end of the economic food chain feel neglected by the nation’s mega-corporations and the wealthy political elite behind these companies. Prior to taking office, President Lee ran the Hyundai Engineering and Construction conglomerate, and has pardoned the chairs of Samsung and Hyundai Motors from jail time over convictions of fraud. Park’s opponent, the liberal Moon Jae-in of the Democratic United Party, has accused the country’s conglomerate-dominated economic model of being the main contributing factor to economic inequality, in addition to crediting Park’s father with developing the corporatist economic model still prevalent today.

The defeated Moon Jae-in spoke of increasing taxation on the wealthy and providing small businesses with economic protection from the chaebol. President Lee’s passing of a free-trade agreement with the United States enraged many working class people and farmers who fear the flooding of Korean markets with cheap foreign agricultural products. Moon publicly voiced his disapproval of the trade regime and vowed to re-negotiate it; this position resonated well with young leftists, but popular disdain for establishment parties like Moon’s Democratic United Party proved to be a major obstacle for the left. Park, on the other hand, has toed the party line of President Lee by championing economic and diplomatic ties with Washington, while resisting calls for taxing the chaebol in fear of hampering their growth. Park has played more of a centrist role than one would expect from a conservative ticket by advocating college tuition cuts, maternity assistance, free school lunches, and other social welfare programs, but has come under fire for being unable to answer basic questions about minimum wage figures during a debate, prompting tough statements from the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions:

“It is terribly discouraging when a person who wants to become president does not even know the country’s minimum wage, which is a minimal right for survival and the first step toward a welfare state.”

Park’s “Trustpolitik” & Inter-Korean relations

The failures of Lee Myung-bak’s loathed tenure are none more apparent than in the field of inter-Korean relations. As Kim Jong-un consolidates power in Pyongyang and toys with introducing seedlings of economic reform, it is high time for a change in frequency from the Blue House in Seoul toward more amenable relations between the two Koreas. Although Park has publically stood clear of Lee’s tough stance, a closer look at her foreign policy signifies more acquiesce than divergence from the status quo. In a 2011 article published by Park in the Council on Foreign Relation’s Foreign Affairs website titled, “A New Kind of Korea,” the incoming president talks of adopting a policy of “trustpolitik,” aimed at developing a minimum level of trust between the two Koreas. Just as it exists under the current leadership of President Lee, the cornerstone of Park’s policy revolves around Pyongyang abandoning its nuclear program and de-weaponizing, or suffering the consequences.

Park is setting herself up to fail, and having herself visited Pyongyang to negotiate with Kim Jong il, one would assume she would be less naïve on the issue of Pyongyang’s nuclear program and the importance it holds to North Koreans. After the death of Kim il-Sung in 1994, his son oversaw general economic mismanagement and a series of natural disasters that led to widespread starvation. To legitimize his tenure, Kim Jong-il introduced Songun politics, a military-first policy aimed at appeasing the military and building up national defenses. The attainment of a “nuclear deterrent” has been trumpeted as a major accomplishment in domestic North Korean propaganda, despite very little concrete evidence known about these weapons, their capability, or the status of Pyongyang’s nuclear program.

It is unrealistic to expect Pyongyang to give up its nuclear program, primarily because achieving the status of a nuclear state (despite whether or not they actually have achieved that status) is Kim Jong-il’s main “accomplishment.” The upper echelons of leadership in the Korean Worker’s Party surely hold dear the lessons of Gaddafi after dismantling Libya’s nuclear program. Pyongyang continues to pursue provocative missile tests and belligerent rhetoric because they view this as a means of ensuring their security, the fact that the Pyongyang power-dynasty has moved into a third generation is proof enough that this policy has worked for them. Park has spoke of taking a middle-of-the-road approach, and buttressed an inter-Korean dialogue with Kim Jong-un. These are goals that represent a more practical shift, but if Park’s policy rests solely on being open to Pyongyang only if they disarm, the incoming administration will find itself mired in President Lee’s legacy of tension. In line with the militarism of her conservative party, Park has spoken of plans to create an East Asian military alliance and appears willing to continue the hardline against Pyongyang:

“Asian states must slow down their accelerating arms buildup, reduce military tensions, and establish a cooperative security regime that would complement existing bilateral agreements and help resolve persistent tensions in the region.”

“South Korea must first demonstrate, through a robust and credible deterrent posture, that it will no longer tolerate North Korea’s increasingly violent provocations. It must show Pyongyang that the North will pay a heavy price for its military and nuclear threats. This approach is not new, but in order to change the current situation, it must be enforced more vigorously than in the past.”

In contrast to Park, Moon Jae-in’s Democratic United Party has touted a return to the “Sunshine Policy,” and has advocated restarting unconditional aid to Pyongyang. The conservative political elite in Seoul fails to realize that relations with North Korea can more effectively be cooled not by pursuing hardline policies and provocative military drills, but by bolstering inter-Korean economic ties, tourism, and exchange. Kim Jong-un can only begin to dismantle the military-first policy by offering some alternative whereby he maintains his legitimacy – that could potentially be by increasing economic opportunity, raising standards of living, and developing North Korea’s economy. Seoul would be in a much better position to negotiate if they had a hand in mutually beneficial economic development with the North. Park’s ambitions of creating a “cooperative security regime” with Asian states (presuming North Korea is excluded) will certainly not help convince Pyongyang to disarm. An “Asian NATO” is counterproductive and would only make Pyongyang more unpredictable – as long as Seoul’s ballistic missiles are capable of hitting any part of North Korea, expecting Pyongyang to commit political suicide by disarming is simply not realistic.

Conclusions

The incoming South Korean administration has lots of problems on its hands; managing an ageing population with some of the world’s lowest birth rates, tackling increasing prostitution rates, high suicide rates and other social ills, and coping with an economic slowdown in China, the nation’s biggest export market. South Korea’s economic development has lifted millions out of poverty and into the economic space of high-income earners in the span of a few decades. It would be foolish for Park to pursue the foreign policy of her predecessor and risk bringing about a reignited Korean war and all that would come with it; enormous civilian casualty rates, an unprecedented refugee crisis, and a major handicap on the South Korean economy. All signs point to Park Geun-hye continuing along the same economic trajectory as the incumbent President Lee, perhaps with a greater emphasis on social welfare programs. The next five years will be critical for inter-Korean relations. In attempting to emerge from her father’s shadow, one would hope that she could address the faults in the economic system her father helped create by reducing the income disparity, and also learn from his mistakes by allowing free and open political dissent and total freedom of expression.

Nile Bowie is an independent political commentator and photographer based in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. He can be reached at nilebowie@gmail.com

 

 

By Robert Reich

20 December 12

@ Robert Reich’s Blog

Why is the President back to making premature and unnecessary concessions to Republicans?

Two central issues in the 2012 presidential election were whether the Bush tax cuts should be ended for people earning over $250,000, and whether Social Security and Medicare should be protected from future budget cuts.

The President said yes to both. Republicans said no. Obama won.

But apparently the President is now offering to continue to Bush tax cuts for people earning between $250,000 and $400,000, and to cut Social Security by reducing annual cost-of-living adjustments.

These concessions aren’t necessary. If the nation goes over the so-called “fiscal cliff” and tax rates return to what they were under Bill Clinton, Democrats can then introduce a tax cut for everyone earning under $250,000 and make it retroactive to the start of the year.

They can combine it with a spending bill that makes up for most of the cuts scheduled to go into effect in January. Republicans would be hard-pressed not to sign on.

Social Security should not be part of any such deal anyway. By law, it can’t contribute to the budget deficit. It’s only permitted to spend money from the Social Security trust fund.

Besides, the President’s proposed reduction in annual Social Security cost-of-living adjustments would save only $122 billion over ten years. Yet it would significantly harm the elderly.

It defies logic and fairness to give more tax cuts to the wealthy while cutting benefits for the near-poor.

The median income of Americans over 65 is less than $20,000 a year. Nearly 70 percent of them depend on Social Security for more than half of this. The average Social Security benefit is less than $15,000 a year.

Even Social Security’s current cost-of-living adjustment understates the true impact of inflation on elderly recipients, who spend far more on health care than anyone else – including annual increases in Medicare premiums.

Hands off Social Security. If the Republicans are willing to raise tax rates on high earners but demand more spending cuts in return, the President should offer larger cuts in defense spending and corporate welfare.

Robert B. Reich, Chancellor’s Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley, was Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration. Time Magazine named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the last century. He has written thirteen books, including the best sellers “Aftershock” and “The Work of Nations.” His latest is an e-book, “Beyond Outrage.” He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine and chairman of Common Cause.

By Colin Todhunter

20 December, 2012

@ Countercurrents.org

According to some who believe in signs and prophecies, based on the ancient Mayan calendar, the world may have ended by the time you read this, in which case you won’t be reading it! Maybe those people know a thing or two because, given the current state of play, would it come as a great surprise if the world were to actually come to an end?

But, regardless of any prophecy, I can guarantee right now that the world will shortly be coming to an end – for many people. US-backed conflict in Syria will fuel even more death and destruction in that unfortunate country. The US is banking on it. Where would its plans be to dominate the world if it could not rely on killing and brutality brought about by stoking ethnic and sectarian conflict? Such tactics have already caused hundreds of thousands of deaths in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan. The strategy persists and the killing goes on.

What is happening in Syria at this moment is symptomatic of a criminality that too often goes unquestioned, that is too often regarded as normal and thus acceptable thanks mainly to the mainstream media. People have been softened up to accept barbarity as normal and thus as acceptable by a global corporate media that takes as fact whitewashed official statements and press releases justifying militarism and consequent mass murder by the US government, the British government or any other number of governments.

The result is that this criminality pervades all aspects of life in 2012.

Thanks to a toothless mainstream media, it is regarded as normal and thus acceptable that the international system of trade and finance has allowed capital to be shifted around the globe at ease, resulting in big profits and environmental degradation, easy money and cheap labour, private gain and public havoc. All of this is done according to the warped rationale of the market, supported by dogma masquerading as economic theory.

It is regarded as normal and thus acceptable that the food and pharmaceuticals industries work to sicken and treat us and that ‘big oil’ works hand in glove with agribusiness to impose a system of water intensive, chemical-industrial agriculture at the expense of biodiversity and environmental sustainability.

US militarism is implemented on behalf of bankers and any other number of corporate interests and is carried out under the lie of ‘humanitarianism’ or the ‘war on terror’. The profiteering nuclear energy and resource extraction industries are destroying democracy and placing people and environments in jeopardy in India.

The mainstream media serves to make barbarity acceptable.

 

Governments are working overtime to attack and deceive their populations on behalf of rich corporations, which have succeeded in bending the machineries of state and media to their will. The end-result is diminishing democracy, the increasing influence of international finance, the destruction of local economies, science pressed into the service of a worldwide arms industry, endless conflict over finite resources and unnecessary suffering.

There is an alternative and it entails debunking the myth that the endless pursuit of high GDP growth on the back of increased power for the market, speculators and huge corporate concerns is how we define normality. The current system is not only ecologically destructive and fuels and relies on perpetual conflict, but wrongly privileges urban over rural and promotes the excessive consumption of energy to engage in unnecessary work to produce unnecessary goods that have a built-in planned obsolescence. This socially divisive, wasteful and unsustainable system is tied to an image of the world laid down by powerful transnational corporations and which is translated into policies by the IMF, WTO, World Bank and national governments.

This is the current state of play. It’s become matter of fact. It’s become acceptable.

It’s also quite normal that 130 countries have recognised opposition forces in Syria as the legitimate ‘government’ there, even though the US, NATO, oil rich Gulf states and Israel have done their damnedest to interfere in the workings of a sovereign state in order to create civil war and bolster the position of the said opposition. It’s quite normal that many of those 130 countries only support such tactics because not to do so would incur the bullying of the US in terms of economic, military and political aid or support being cut or other pressures and sanctions being applied. And the mainstream media regards this as constituting the will of the ‘international community’, of ‘independent’ sovereign states acting according to conscience.

Where would we be without such a media? There are many examples from across the world of how we could address the problems we currently face and of how we could challenge what is spoon-fed to us as ‘normality’.

Unfortunately, those who comprise the US-led military-financial-industrial complex and who control and own the corporate media have no interest in solutions. From Goldman Sachs, Bank of America and General Electric to BP, Shell and others, they seek to maintain the current system at all costs.

And that entails seeking to impose their warped version of normality through media propaganda and the barrel of a gun, the attack of a drone and all illegal means necessary. Those who refuse to cave in to US-led hegemony could well face a similar fate as Syria. You don’t need to refer to the Mayan calendar to know for some the end could be near. The message from the US is that it will be – if you fail to fall into line.

Colin Todhunter : Originally from the northwest of England, Colin Todhunter has spent many years in India. He has written extensively for the Deccan Herald (the Bangalore-based broadsheet), New Indian Express and Morning Star (Britain). His articles have also appeared in various other newspapers, journals and books. His East by Northwest website is at: http://colintodhunter.blogspot.com

By Franklin Lamb

20 December, 2012

@ Countercurrents.org

Yarmouk camp, Damascus : A few thoughts rushed through this observers mind when he saw a distraught looking woman sitting alone, tightly holding two babies, at one corner of the vast parking lot of the central Damascus bus station known as Al-Soumariyeh . It is from here where inexpensive transportation can be had for those traveling west, east, north and south.

One thought was about a character out of a Charles Dickens novel and the other was ‘waif, frail, malnourished, frightened’, so the lady, holding the babies appeared. She managed a polite but weak smile as I passed and she said “hello.”

Long story made short, the lady and I chatted and it turned out that Souha was fleeing the al-Hajar al-Aswad neighborhood on the southern edge of Yarmouk Palestinian refugee camp. This is one of the ‘hot-line’ areas of Yarmouk, where on 12/16/12 approximately 400 Jabhat al-Nusra (Nusra Front) militia fighters joined by various other salafist jihadists defeated Palestinian “popular committees” fighters supposedly loyal to Ahmed Jabil’s, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-GC (PFLP-GC). There are various unconfirmed estimates of how many ‘General Command’ fighters defected during the fighting to the rebel forces, but the PFLP-GC admits that some did. Also in the camp are some fighters from the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) and the Popular Front (PFLP).

Souha who is studying English literature, had lost her husband and was trying to travel to Ein el Helwe refugee camp in Saida, Lebanon. She had the name of a distant relative, she thought was still living in Ein el Helwe, but she was unsure how to find her but knew that she desperately needed to get out of Syria.

Nearly 70% (UNWRA puts the figure at 90%) of the 180,000 Yarmouk camp residents in the 2.1 square-kilometer camp area have, as of this morning fled. This figure was provided by, Anwar Raja, politburo member of the ‘General Command” with whom this observer had a three hour meeting during the night of 12/18/2012 inside the north edge of Yarmouk. Any camp resident with a MTN or Syriatel mobile phone got a text message, from the Syrian military to leave the camp for their own safety.

Souha asked me if I had heard about the problems of the Palestinian people and explained that she fled the bombing at Yarmouk camp and that most of her neighbors also scattered. Some of the thousands of refugees who continue to flee Yarmouk can be seen today near central Damascus, and sitting in the streets of Midan. These areas are still safe. Other are huddled in parks and camped under concrete underpasses, in schools, mosques and basically anywhere they can find a spot. Many are sleeping on sidewalks at al-Sabaa Bahrat square. A friend and I spoke last night to a family of four who had only thin UNCHR blankets for the night.

Souha said she was afraid to seek safety in a Mosque because they are no longer a safe refuge and she explained that she passed about a dozen bodies on the steps and front ground next to the Abdul Qader Al-Hosseini mosque as she left Yarmouk.

Happy to learn that there are actually non-stop vans going from central Damascus to Saida, Lebanon, without having to change vehicles, we found the driver, agreed on a price of 30 LL (about $ 45) for Souha and the same price for her two babies. I insisted on a two-for-one price for the little ones and since it was starting to get dark, the nice fellow agreed. I gave Souha what money I had and also contact information for friends in Lebanon who I knew would help her.

As the van pulled off she waved from the window and I could not help thinking that she may not get much help from the Lebanese government on arriving. Yet I knew that Palestinians there would assist her. I recalled the words of the late murdered Khalil al Wazir (Abu Jihad) when he explained nearly three decades ago, to this observer and the American journalist, Janet Stevens,: “At the end of the day, we Palestinians can rely only on ourselves.” I did not dwell much on his words at the time but since then I have come to understand very well what the great Resistance leader meant.

Yesterday morning I assumed Souha was in Lebanon and had arrived to Saida. Then I began to hear the unsettling news of long lines at the Maznaa crossing from Syria into Lebanon. The news got worse. Thousands of Palestinian refugees were lined up, some waiting for 10 hours or more to cross and many being refused entry into by Lebanese General Security because of “inadequate documents.” Many right now are being forced to return to Damascus.

Lebanon has an international humanitarian duty to ease entry and to assist refugees, as required by well-established and globally accepted international law. But with the exception of Zionist occupied Palestine, Lebanon has the worst human rights record toward Palestinians than any country on earth. The Lebanese Parliament still refuses to grant Palestinian refugees in Lebanon the elementary right to work or to own a home. Even though according to various economic studies, if Palestinians could work, they would help dramatically to build Lebanon’s weak economy.

During the morning of 12/19/12 the news got even worse regarding Souha. Someone from Reuters sent me a published photo showing her stuck on a bus at Maznaa for over 12 hours. According to one report she was forced to return to Damascus. Wherever Souha is she is hopefully someone is helping her.

Ahmed Jebril, an ally of the Syrian government is blaming foreign paid terrorists for the attack that is forcing the emptying of Yarmouk and also the rather quick defeat of his fighters. He and his GC staff told this observer that the General Command had no plans to attempt to return to Yarmouk. Reports from the camp claim that more than half of the GC’s 1000 fighters, mainly younger ones, defected to the rebels. It is difficult to know the truth, but it is fairly clear that Yarmouk has substantially been emptied and that government forces are surrounding the camp, presumably in preparation for a massive counter-attack and or aerial bombardment.

One statement that Ahmed Jebril, who contrary to a New York Times report, has not fled to Iran or Tartous, made that is probably accurate is that “As Yarmouk goes, so goes Damascus. As Damascus goes, so goes Syria”. Jabril’s aid Anwar Raja said that the camp will be used by the rebels to destroy the airport and to launch their “final assault” into the center of Damascus. They showed this observer fragments of ‘home made’ weapons similar to those collected from around Syria by military intelligence who in late October briefed this observer.

The near term will reveal the fate of Yarmouk Palestinian refugee camp and who, in the coming battle, are the winners. But it is sure that Souha and all Palestinian refugees ethnically cleansed from their homes in Palestine are once again the losers.

Franklin Lamb is doing research in Syria and can be reached c/o fplamb@gmail.com.

By Ramzy Baroud

20 December, 2012

@ Countercurrents.org

France is insisting on ‘rapid’ military intervention in Mali. Its unmanned drones have reportedly been scouring the desert of the troubled West African nation – although it claims that the drones are seeking the whereabouts of six French hostages believed to be held by Al-Qaeda. The French are likely to get their wish, especially following the recent political fiasco engineered by the country’s strong man and coup leader Capt. Amadou Haya Sanogo. The Americans also covet intervention, but one that would serve their growing interests in the Sahel region. African countries are divided and have no clear alternative on how to restore Mali’s territorial integrity – and equally important political sovereignty – disjointed between Tuareg secessionists and Islamic militants in the north and factionalized army in the south.

The current crisis in Mali is the recent manifestation of a recurring episode of terrible suffering and constant struggles. It goes back much earlier than French officials in particular wish to recall. True, there is much bad blood between the various forces that are now fighting for control, but there is also much acrimony between Mali and France, the latter having conquered Mali (then called French Sudan) in 1898. After decades of a bitter struggle, Mali achieved its independence in 1960 under the auspices of a socialist government led by President Modibo Keita. One of his very early orders of business was breaking away with French influence and the Franc zone.

Former colonial powers rarely abandon their ambitions, even after their former colonies gain hard-earned freedom. They remain deeply entrenched by meddling in various ways that destabilize the former colonies. Then when opportune, they militarily intervene to uphold the status quo. In 1968 Keita was ousted from power, and few years later in 1977, he died in a lonely cell. His death ushered in mass protests, compelling few cosmetic gestures towards a new constitution and half-hearted democracy.

Turmoil defined Mali for many years since then, even after the country achieved a level of political stability in 1992. At the time it was believed that Mali was fast becoming a model for democracy, at least in the West Africa region. Few years later, thousands of refugees from the ever-neglected and under-represented Tuaregs began returning to their towns and villages mostly in the vast desert region in northern Mali. That return was introduced by a peace agreement signed between Tuaregs and the central government. Little on the ground has changed. Various bands of Islamic groups, some homegrown, others fleeing fighting in neighboring countries, especially Algeria, found haven in Mali’s north and west. At times, they fought amongst each other, at times they served some unclear agendas of outside parties, and at times they created temporary alliances amongst themselves.

While France attempted to keep Mali in its sphere of influence – thus its decision in 2002 to cancel over a third of Mali’s debt – the United States was also taking interest in Mali’s crucial position in the Sahel regions and the prospects created by the ungovernability of the northern regions.

Of course, the all-inclusive definition of Al-Qaeda served as the ever-convenient ruse to justify American involvement. Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) has been used by Washington to rationalize the establishment of the US Africa Command (AFRICOM). It was set up in 2008 to manage US military interests in the whole continent with the exception of Egypt. The US State Department claimed that AFRICOM “will play a supportive role as Africans build democratic institutions and establish good governance across the continent.”

The importance of the Al-Qaeda narrative to the American role in the Sahel was highlighted in the last presidential debate between President Barack Obama and his Republican opponent, Mitt Romney. To flex some political muscles, perhaps Romney warned of ‘Al-Qaeda type individuals” threatening to turn Mali into a new Afghanistan. Other western experts on the Sahel dispute the analogy, however claiming that Mali is descending into a Sudan-like model instead. Either way, the people of Mali are currently suffering the consequences of the burgeoning conflict, which reflects a convoluted mix of foreign agendas, extremist ideologies and real grievances of Malian tribes in the north and west.

The south of the country is not exactly an oasis of stability. The ongoing territorial struggle and political volatility are threatening the whole country, which has been battling a cruel famine and pitiless warlords. The most dominant faction in the Malian army is led by US-trained Army Capt. Amadou Sanogo, who on March 22 led a coup against President Amadou Toumani Toure. Sanogo’s reasoning – blaming Toure for failing to stamp out growing militant influence in the north – sounded more like a pretense than a genuine attempt at recovering the disintegrating country.

It remains unclear who Sanogo’s backers are, especially since France and the US are relatively tolerant of his political transgressions and violent conduct. Sanogo’s coup came shortly before elections, scheduled for last April. While the African Union (AU) reacted assertively to the coup by suspending Mali’s membership, western powers remained indecisive. Despite a half-hearted handing over of power from the coup leaders to a civilian government of President Dioncounda Traore, Sanogo remain firmly in charge. In May, the junta struck again, retaking power, as pro-Sanogo mobs almost beat president Traore to death inside his presidential compound.

Sanogo, empowered by the lack of decisiveness to his conduct, continued to play some political game or another. A short lived ‘national unity government’ under Prime Minister Cheick Modibo Diarra was more or less toppled when Diarra was arrested by Sanogo’s men. He was forced to concede power and install a little known government administrator as his predecessor. Sonogo’s political show continues, especially as the West African regional grouping (ECOWAS), along with the AU remains focused on what they perceive as a more urgent priority: ending the territorial disintegration in the north and west.

The conflict in the north is in a constant influx. Alliances change, thus the nature of the conflict is in perpetual alteration. Large consignments of weapons that were made available during NATO’s war in Libya early last year, made their way to various rebel and militant groups throughout the region. The Tuaregs had received support from the ousted Libyan government and were dispersed during and following the war. Many of them returned to Mali, battle-hardened and emboldened by the advanced weapons.

Fighting in the north began in stages, most notably in January 2012. Sanogo’s coup created the needed political vacuum for Tuaregs’ National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad (MNLA) to declare independence in the north a mere two weeks later. The declaration was the result of quick military victories by MNLA and its militant allies, which led to the capture of Gao and other major towns. These successive developments further bolstered Islamic and other militant groups to seize cities across the country and hold them hostage to their ideologies and other agendas. For example, Ansar al-Din had reportedly worked jointly with the MNLA, but declared a war “against independence” and “for Islam” in June, as soon as it secured its control over Timbuktu. Al-Tawhid wa al-Jihad, along with AQIM made their moves. The allies soon became bitter enemies.

Last September, rebels from various Islamic groupings in control of the north began advancing onto other strategic areas in the center and south-west parts of the country. Their territorial advances are now made against government-held towns and areas that are still controlled by Azawad Tuareg rebels.

There is now semi-consensus on the need for military intervention in Mali, although some differences persist over the nature and scope of that intervention. Sanogo himself has little interest in seeing other West African powers jockeying for influence in Bamako, which could threaten his thus far unchallenged rule. Moreover, it is unclear how affective military force can be, as the territorial fragmentation, many militant groupings and political discord throughout the country are almost impossible to navigate.

The stability of West Africa is surely at stake. The chances of a political solution are all but completely dissipated. The growing chaos will likely benefit interventionist states – France and the US in particular. A long-drawn new ‘war on terror,’ will justify further intervention in West Africa and more meddling in the affairs of ECOWAS countries.

A few years ago, a new ‘scramble for Africa’ was unleashed due to China’s growing influence in the continent. It was heightened by a more recent North African turmoil caused by the so-called Arab Spring. Opportunities are now abound for those ready to stake more claims over a long exploited region

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is: My Father was A Freedom Fighter: Gaza’s Untold Story (Pluto Press).

By Issa Khalaf

20 December, 2012

@ www.alternet.org

Everything about Syria is steeped in miasma: is this conflict politically and sociologically definable as a civil war? Has it become a sectarian war? How strong and widespread is the Salafist (and global Jihadi) presence? Was militarization wise or did the opposition have no choice in this regard? Are the armed groups able to defeat the regime’s forces or will there be a perpetual, bloody stalemate whose only certainty is Syria’s complete physical destruction and long-term division? Is a negotiated outcome, that is, a political solution the only possibility, or is it uninformed to speak of political solutions at this stage of the conflict?

Despite this fog, there are, in my mind, several certainties. One, Syria is not a clear-cut case of bad regime versus good society, for that society is not at one regarding the violent overthrow of the state. This is not a mass, democratic revolution but a Sunni rebellion. Any spontaneity to its genesis, including the goal of non-violent resistance, came to a speedy end, provided with a significant impetus by the flow of foreign arms, money, and intelligence, including from the US. A substantial ‘silent’ majority desperately wishes to avoid Syria’s disintegration because they simply love their country, not the regime or armed rebels, and prefer reform and a negotiated settlement.

Two, it is false to equate, as the regime portrays it, every Syrian’s opposition to the Ba’athi state with acting on behalf of Zionists and imperialists, and equally false to suggest that advocating a negotiated settlement equates to buying into the regime’s self-narrative of an indispensable anti-imperialist frontline.

Three, foreign powers, especially Washington, several of its NATO allies, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, the latter essentially monarchic police states, are violating international law in pursuing subversion and violent regime change, and share primary responsibility for the radicalization, destabilization, and horrific violence inflicted on the people of Syria. Washington is interested in regime change, not in ensuring that neither side prevails to force a settlement.

Four, the fundamental truth is the Syrian people’s case for dignity and freedom, rights brutally denied and violated for so long by fearsome regimes such as the Syrian Ba’ath. The revolt against the Ba’athist regime, despite its now tainted nature, is not a conspiracy.

Five, despite Syria’s social diversity and divided loyalties, the fact that the regime has many supporters, and that a majority desires peaceful change, calls for the Syrian socio-political system to become no less than a civil, human rights-respecting, citizenship-based state. Still, Syria’s internal complexity and regional role requires special care and objective realism. Take Aleppo as a microcosm of Syrian complexity, the largest Syrian city containing some 82% Sunnis. Listening to the western, Qatari, or Saudi media, one would think that the city erupted into spontaneous rebellion and from the beginning was fighting a heroic war against the regime’s military and security forces. By objective accounts, however, Aleppo’s denizens supported the Damascus government by a large majority, many of them paying the price of Free Syrian Army reprisals. Now, since the penetration of armed groups and the violent zealotry of Salafists and foreign Jihadis, with their suicide bombings, kidnappings, and beheadings, looting and rape, as well as heavy, indiscriminate government firepower leading to the slow obliteration of this great historic and commercial city – one wonders what has happened to its people and their loyalties.

We only know that government forces and loyalists still hold the city, minus a couple of districts, as they do most of the country. Countless people have fled, many of their empty homes looted and ransacked by their would-be liberators, fearful of returning to rebel reprisals. Aleppo’s Islamist leaning al-Tawhid Division, ostensibly part of the FSA, contains numerous-armed factions, including many Salafi Islamists, who, themselves, are varied, ranging from Brotherhood types to al-Qaida-like extremists. There is also quite noticeable and significant Salafi literalist influence among the armed rebels generally. The disparate factions that make up the FSA are largely Islamist-dominated. Its battalions contain thousands of fighters of the Salafi/Jihadi group, Jabhat al-Nusra, a mainstay of the al-Tawhid in Aleppo.

In a situation of decentralized and disparate commands, such people are there at the front lines. All these groups, including the FSA, have an uneasy, distrustful relationship with the newly minted National Coalition of Syrian Revolution and Opposition Forces, as they previously did with the now discarded Syrian National Council, and as they have with the western powers. Fortunately, Syria does not have a tradition of extremist political Islam. On the contrary, given its pluralist diversity, its geostrategic location, and secular nationalist history, Jihadi-type extremism does not fit in Syria.

The chaos and physical destruction, the ever-present danger of the regime-Sunni war transmuting into a sectarian civil war are deeply worrying, and the Salafists thrive on such an environment. No question, though, in its militarist, violent manifestations, this is essentially a rebellion of the Sunni Muslims, at core from the regions of Hama and Homs, and battle-tested foreigners, including Salafis, supported by the Sunni autocracies and wealthy donors of the peninsula. It is unlikely that a literalist Salafist regime will come to power, much less global Jihadis, but likely that a Sunni-Brotherhood dominated regime, sidelining the National Coalition, will.

The defunct National Council’s main obsession was arming without a clear political programme. The new National Coalition has got itself political recognition as a sort of provisional government—even as Syria remains a member state of the UN led by the al-Assad government—from Qatar, Saudi Arabia, France, Britain, and Turkey, followed by the US, which, however, consigned one rebel group, the Jabha, to its terrorist blacklist. (This prompted all the rest of the armed rebel groups to declare their support for the Jabha.)

Western support is predicated on the promise that the Coalition will unify the opposition, at least act as an umbrella, and be a better watchdog that presumes to undertake the impossible, even inane, task of vouching for and endorsing those groups deserving of armed support, which Washington reckons amounts to two-thirds of the fighting groups and their commanders. These parties essentially cajoled through the expansion of the new Coalition’s membership to three times the previous Council’s size and which includes most of the old Council’s members. The new body’s composition is a safeguard to dilute Islamist influence.

Washington in particular rejected the Brotherhood-dominated Council because it could not deliver unity, or control or exclude extremist Islamists, even though Council members did what the US wanted most of all: they talked about peace and good relations with Israel.

Whether the US is willing to advocate a negotiated solution is in my view not an open question. Its apparent caution in providing advanced, or heavy, weaponry, unlike the reckless monarchic allies it shakily controls, is due to its fear of uncontrolled, unmanaged violence leading to an incompliant, even hostile, Islamist regime. The Obama administration’s ambivalence stems from the tension between aggressive regional allies and its recognition of several realities: the proliferation of extremist groups, the possibility of a bloody stalemate that will destabilize the region, and the potential that an armed group will get its hands on chemical weapons.

Thus, Washington’s most urgent and immediate goal, when not obstructing UN peace and dialogue missions, is to pressure the Coalition to construct a centralized military command and political unity and ferret out the extremists, supposedly one-third of the armed rebels. Its version of a negotiated solution is not genuine internal talks between Damascus and the rebels, but Assad’s departure, which Washington defines as a ‘transition’, but which is actually a precondition.

This, the US imagines, would avoid the concomitant augmentation of Salafi extremist power caused by protracted violence and keep international law and Russia out of the equation, ensuring an obeisant Coalition’s rule. Washington’s conception of ending Syrian suffering is not via morally, legally, diplomatically urgent negotiations between rebels and government. Instead, it repeatedly stresses Assad’s inevitably violent downfall, as only he is responsible for his people’s calamity, thereby absolving it and its allies of complicity in Syria’s torment and prolongation of this horrific upheaval.

Yet the foreign arming of the rebels – that is, the militarization of this conflict – has been Syria’s worst affliction. For Syria does not need lethal arms and war, but a coherent, truly representative opposition built without interference, and ready to find a negotiated political solution to violent conflict. This requires internal Syrian national agreement on a transitional regime change through supervised elections. This at least is the ideal, though not the reality; for everyone, from assorted rebels, hell bent on acquiring advanced weaponry to Coalition members to Washington to local Gulf regimes, wants Assad’s head. The Alawite core of the regime not surprisingly sees this as an existential threat.

What prevails in Syria today is maddening ambiguity and galling hypocrisy on all sides: of the relationship between the Coalition and armed rebels, the craziness of inter-Arab politics, Gulf and Turkish hatred of the Shi’i Alawite Syrian regime—which I call the Sunni Syndrome—nation-destroying French and British actions characterized as advocacy of democracy, and single-minded US control of Syria couched as constructive, responsible diplomacy.

With multiple external players violently pursuing their own agendas supporting multiple factions with their own visions, such as these are, the chance of Syrians reaching a negotiated political solution, much less a compromise leading to such, is virtually nil. In reality, the Ba’ath, the Syrian regime, al-Assad, the socio-political system that prevailed in Syria for nearly a half century all have ended, or at least will not be restored. This in itself is extraordinary. Ultimately, the horrific violence and terrorism from both the state and its opponents is the responsibility of the regime, for it chose to let the country go to hell, and unwittingly invited outside intervention, rather than peacefully oversee a democratic transition in the early phase of the rebellion.

This is an enduring quality of Arab ruling regimes, mostly because they lack fundamental legitimacy and rule over divided societies. One can no longer say Syria is what it used to be, a moderate, pragmatic, stabilizing and secular regional centre keeping extremism at bay. This political role is a natural function of its geography and relatively diverse ethno-sectarian make-up, as well as the political sophistication of its people. Under radically changing circumstances, most importantly, a weakened and fractured Syria, it may not be able to play that role again for decades to come. The west and their autocratic Middle Eastern allies are destroying one ruling group in exchange for another dominated by Brotherhood Islamists. And those Salafists/Jihadists on the front lines will not only want a share of power, but some of them may continue post-Assad violence and insurgency, to the continuing danger of many Syrians.