NYT BREAKING NEWS August 29, 2013 6:04 PM EDT Britain’s Parliament Votes Against Military Action in Syria

August 29, 2013 By administrator

New York Time report

Prime Minister David Cameron said that Britain would not participate militarily in any strike against Syria after he lost a parliamentary vote on Thursday on an anodyne motion urging an international response by 13 votes.
It was a stunning defeat for a government that had seemed days away from joining the United States and France in a short, punitive cruise-missile attack on the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad for allegedly using chemical weapons against civilians.
Thursday evening’s vote was nonbinding, but in a short statement to Parliament afterward, Mr. Cameron said that he respected the will of Parliament and that it was clear to him that the British people did not want to see military action over Syria. “I get it,” he said.
The government motion was defeated by 285 votes to 272.
READ MORE »
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/30/world/middleeast/syria.html?emc=edit_na_20130829

Why Turkish Opposition Leader Kemal Kilicdaroglu go to Iraq?

August 29, 2013 By administrator

Iraq’s fugitive Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi (3rd R) gestures as he leaves a meeting with Turkey’s Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu in Ankara, Sept. 9, 2012. Hashemi, a senior Sunni Muslim politician who fled Iraq after authorities accused him of running a death squad, was sentenced to death for murder. (photo by REUTERS/Umit Bektas)

By: Koray Caliskan Translated from Radikal (Turkey).

Journalists were not invited to the meeting that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and Turkish main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP) leader Kemal Kilicdaroglu held on the morning of Aug. 21 in Baghdad. There was only a photo opportunity for colleagues from news agencies. We asked several times to meet with Maliki, but our requests were turned down on the grounds that he was to travel abroad. Yet, CHP Deputy Chairman Faruk Logoglu briefed us in detail about the meeting. Here are the main points highlighted in the meeting:

Almost all groups in Iraq are irked that Turkey is intervening extensively in Iraq’s internal affairs.

There are documents showing that Turkey is trying to orchestrate certain moves that would unequivocally amount to intervention in Iraqi affairs.

The visit of the CHP leader is seen as a turning point in Turkey-Iraq relations.

Kilicdaroglu is the highest-level Turkish official to have visited Baghdad since 2009.

The problems of Turkish investors in Iraq are mounting as their businesses are grinding to a halt.

Whoever we talked to in Iraq told us the same things, as if they had agreed on that beforehand. It is apparent that Iraqis are very much offended by the biased policies of the Turkish Foreign Ministry and the leadership of the Justice and Development Party (AKP). [Bilateral ties have deteriorated to such an extent that] the recall of ambassadors is the only step that remains untaken. The Turkish Embassy is doing nothing but daily bureaucratic routines. Former Iraqi Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi is a loathed figure here. Evidence is said to exist that he has organized mafia-style networks via his bodyguards and laundered money. Iraqis are perplexed why Turkey chose to shelter a criminal wanted on a “red bulletin” for no obvious political gain.

How would you have felt?

According to Iraqis, the last straw came when Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu visited Kirkuk for political talks without any prior notice to Baghdad, overrunning diplomatic customs. “How would you have felt if our foreign minister had paid a political visit to Arabs in Hatay without ever notifying Ankara?” an Iraqi Foreign Ministry official asked. This single sentence, in fact, summarizes the whole problem. Thereafter, Iraq begins to retaliate. They deny landing permission to a charter plane carrying Turkish Energy Minister Taner Yildiz to a conference in Baghdad. Denying access to the Turkish minister when even managers of small energy companies are able to easily enter Baghdad is a very serious measure.

Iraq’s essential reprisal comes in relation to Turkish entrepreneurs. Their businesses have ground to a halt, their payments are blocked and they are unable to get even the specification documents of new tenders. The reconstruction of Iraq is a huge market. Turkey is totally sidelined from this market because of the row that the AKP started for nothing. The situation creates trouble for the Iraqis, too. They are buying water from waterless Kuwait and apples from across the ocean from the United States. Baghdad’s problem with the Kurds is on the course of settlement. Kurdistan is called “Kurdistan” even by Iraqis, with only Turks calling it “Northern Iraq.” Very ironic.

Now, let’s see the real reason for Kilicdaroglu’s visit. Turkish business people are helpless about how to proceed in Iraq. One of them, for instance, said that the losses of only one of his companies had reached $15 million. As in many other areas, the government has clogged relations with Iraq. The CHP is essentially building a new style of diplomacy. It is opening a new channel of diplomatic ties with Iraq to make sure that the AKP’s isolation — the ruling party is now going as far as to take pride with it! — does not affect Turkey as a whole. If the CHP pulls it off, they will set up a commission with Maliki’s investment minister to readjust ties.

Corbett Report- Chemical Hypocrisy: Lies & Disinformation on the Road to War (VIDEO)

August 29, 2013 By administrator

by James Corbett August 26, 2013

With the latest allegations that Assad used chemical weapons on his own people in Syria, the world once again stands on the brink of outright military intervention in the country. As the calls for intervention by the usual suspects increases in intensity, military strikes on Damascus are looking more and more inevitable.

And with these pompous bloviations, Kerry and the warmongers of the American war machine have raised their collective middle finger not just to the Bashar al-Assad government, not just to his allies in Tehran and Moscow and Beijing, not just to the overwhelming public opinion of their own citizens, but even to the old conventions of giving lip service to truth that has run this murderous system of lies for so long.

To hell with the facts. Damn those who ask for the presentation of any shred of proof that these chemical weapons attacks can be blamed on Assad. Damn all logic in asking us to believe that Assad waited until chemical weapons inspectors arrived in his country before using chemical weapons in a war that he was already winning anyway. Damn the staggering 91% of the public who do not support the idea of military intervention. None of that matters to the psychopaths who are hell-bent on yet another murderous conflict. The American/Israeli/French/British war machine cries out for the blood of more innocents, and this it shall have come hell or high water.

We are being told that this attack is being prepared because Assad crossed the “red line” of chemical weapons use. This is a lie. America has never cared about the victims of chemical weapons attacks ever in its history unless it can achieve its own military objectives by parading on the corpses of those victims. This time is no exception.

Chemical weapons are weapons that use chemical agents to harm or kill enemy combatants, often in painful and horrific ways. These include such categories of weapons as blister agents like mustard gas, nerve agents like VX and Sarin, blood agents and choking agents. Their use is proscribed under international law by the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention.

Saddam Hussein’s use of chemical weapons was often cited in the run up to the 2003 war on Iraq as one justification for that war. In this latest round of war propaganda surrounding the Syrian incident, it is particularly ironic that newly declassified documents show that the United States actively aided and abetted Saddam’s use of the weapons throughout the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s through the provision of technical and logistical support that helped Saddam plan his attacks. The documents show that US intelligence apparatus was fully aware of Saddam’s intent to use chemical weapons, and the instances in which he did so, but did not withdraw their support for his regime, as the Reagan White House did not want to see Iraq lose the conflict.

In an even more blatant case of hypocrisy, both the US and Israel have used white phosphorous in warfare in the last decade. The US deployed white phosphorous against civilians in Iraq in 2004 and Israel did so in its “Operation Cast Lead” in Palestine in 2009. The use of WP as a weapon against civilians is prohibited, but it was done knowingly in both cases, constituting a war crime under both countries’ own laws and treaty obligations.

The US has also used depleted uranium in virtually every country it has fought in over the past two decades. Depleted uranium has been linked to a range of health effects including birth defects, cancer and other diseases, resulting in “the highest rate of genetic damage in any population ever studied” in one area of Iraq.

Meanwhile, the US and its allies are perfectly happy to look the other way when their pliant puppet regimes around the world use chemical weapons. In Bahrain, for example, the Bahraini government has been weaponizing tear gas, locking down cities and flooding the area with the chemical until many of the inhabitants are debilitated or even dead. For some reason, however, there is no 24/7 coverage of the crisis in Bahrain, nor are there any Beltway pundits or talking heads providing interviews to the dinosaur media laying out the case for war against the chemical weapons-deploying Bahraini regime.

The simple fact is that this war, like all the others before it, is being waged for the expansion and preservation of the oligarchies self-interest.

It’s about pipeline politics. A freshly inked Memorandum of Understanding between Damascus, Baghdad and Tehran has brought the Iran-Iraq-Syria gas pipeline one step closer to reality. But that pipeline would undercut Qatar’s importance as a gas producer and undermine Turkey’s position as self-appointed East-West energy crossroads, and thus cannot be allowed to stand.

It’s about regional dominance. The removal of Iran’s so-called Shia land bridge that cuts through Iraq and Syria to join up with Hezbollah in Lebanon effectively undermines any chance for Iran to assume the regional dominance that it would otherwise have, while aggrandizing Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and others vying for the region’s driver seat.

It’s about the increasing isolation of Iran in preparation for the coming assault on that country. As the now-infamous 2009 Brookings Institution report, “Which Path to Persia?” contends, the road to Tehran goes through Damascus.

And, of course, as always, it’s about the ever-present need to feed more and more people into the maw of the military-industrial complex to maintain the justification for its existence.

The public is not stupid. It understands these things. But after the demoralization of the Iraq war fiasco, in which the largest simultaneous worldwide protests in the history of the planet failed to deviate the oligarchy from its invasion plans one inch, there seems to be nothing to stop the forward progress of this march to war.

And yet, the need to stop this madness has never been more urgent and the stakes in this increasingly insane game of imperial chess have never been higher. As French/Syrian political activist Ayssar Midani pointed out in yesterday’s special report, the coming attack on Syria is not just directed at Assad, but at all of Syria’s increasingly agitated (and increasingly powerful) allies.

Where does this leave us? Once again watching helplessly as yet another overwhelmingly unpopular war is launched to the detriment of all but the oligarchy and their cronies. And where is the anti-war movement that could even potentially demonstrate the public’s resistance to this agenda, let alone deviate the war machine from its path? Has it really come to this, after decades of hard-fought, sometimes bloody resistance to war after war? Can the US government and its allies really start another “kinetic military action” without the approval of Congress and without showing a shred of evidence to the public to back up their phony justification? Unfortunately, we’re about to find out.

And until the political status quo changes and people stop voting for the better of the two proffered slave masters every four years, nothing is going to change. Sadly, however, given the state of the inter-nicene squabbling between those factions who should be opposed to this agenda, such a change in consciousness seems as far away as ever. And the war machine marches on unimpeded…

RT: Not a ‘slam dunk’: US intelligence can’t prove Assad used chemical weapons

August 29, 2013 By administrator

RT Report:

Only days after the White House suggested it was all but certain Syrian President Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons to gas hundreds of civilians, United States intelligence officials briefed on the situation say the evidence isn’t all there.

Despite recent remarks from US President Barack Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry and other top administration officials, sources within the intelligence community are disputing the certainty that Assad ordered the use of chemical gas last week on innocent civilians outside of Damascus, Syria.

Four US officials — including one senior member of the intelligence community — told the Associated Press this week that there’s confusion over where the reported chemical warheads are currently being held and who exactly possesses them. Citing a lapse in both signals and human intelligence reports, the officials all told the AP on condition of anonymity that US and allied spies “have lost track of who controls some of the country’s chemical weapons supplies,” according to reporters Kimberly Dozier and Matt Apuzzo.

Multiple officials, the AP reported Thursday morning, used the phrase “not a slam dunk” to discuss the credibility of intelligence linking chemical weapon use directly to Pres. Assad. In 2002, then-Central Intelligence Agency Director George Tenet infamously said Washington scored a “slam dunk” with regards to confirming Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. Now more than a decade down the road, US officials hesitant to rush off to war are again questioning the credibility of the White House’s own report.
According to an Office of the Director for National Intelligence report cited by the AP, the evidence against Syria “is thick with caveats” and contains gaps that are getting in the way of putting the chemical weapon use directly in the hands of Assad.

But Carney, the administration’s press secretary, said earlier this week that the White House “established with a high degree of confidence that the Syria regime has used chemical weapons already in this conflict.”

“It is our firm conviction that the Assad regime is responsible” for gassing civilians on August 21, Carney added. “Logic dictates that conclusion, as well as the hard facts. And the president is working with his national security team to evaluate the options available to him to respond, as well as consulting with international allies and consulting with members of Congress.”

Those remarks echoed a statement made by Sec. Kerry this week as well in which he said the White House was certain Assad’s regime maintains custody of the chemical weapons used, and that the regime “has been determined to clear the opposition from those very places where the attacks took place.”

Kerry fell short of directly saying Assad ordered the attack, but Pres. Obama made that allegation during an interview with PBS’ NewsHour on Wednesday.
“We have concluded that the Syrian government in fact carried these out,” Obama said of the assault. “And if that’s so, then there need to be international consequences.”

Earlier this week, Foreign Policy reporter Noah Shachtman wrote that the US intelligence community recently intercepted conversations in Syria that suggested the Aug. 21 assault could have been not necessarily ordered by Assad, but perhaps “the work of a Syrian officer overstepping his bounds.”

“It’s unclear where control lies,” one US intelligence official told Foreign Policy. “Is there just some sort of general blessing to use these things? Or are there explicit orders for each attack?”

“We don’t know exactly why it happened,” the official added. “We just know it was pretty fucking stupid.”

Pres. Obama is briefing members of Congress on the Syrian situation on Thursday using conclusions made by US intelligence, after which a declassified report is expected to be released to the public.

Syria raid could trigger Russia response – Afshin Rattanzi (Britain threatening to go in with the United States to support al-Qaeda-linked militancy)

August 29, 2013 By administrator

Press TV has conducted an interview with Afshin Rattanzi, an author and journalist in London, about the the US and its allies beating the drums of war on Syria as well as warnings by other countries that such a strike would have dire consequences.

– On the issue of an attack, we were speaking to our correspondent and he said that a question, which was raised by a lot of reporters today in Damascus is- What would be achieved, what would be the objective of a Western-led attack in Syria?

We had some interesting remarks by Francois Hollande (French president) just now, he said that the civil war in Syria is a threat to global peace and that international law shouldn’t be used as a pretext when we are seeing massacres take place, to protect the perpetrators.

– Yes, those statements indicate that international law isn’t something that Paris is too keen on.

I’m speaking to you from London where there has been an emergency meeting taking place not a mile away from where I’m talking from. How ironic that as regards objectives that the National Security Council in Britain was set up after 9/11 to protect Britain from al-Qaeda-linked atrocities and what threatened them.

And here is Britain threatening to go in with the United States to support al-Qaeda-linked militancy. I think even American generals are expressing their concern of the objectives of any attack by these warships in the Mediterranean. What are those objectives?

– Yes that’s the thing. A lot of people are asking, we have to put the question of who is going to benefit from this. A lot of observers are now pointing the finger at Israel. They are asking, who could have provided these chemical substances and chemical weapons? They are saying that this is a pre-planned scenario; and Russia has also been clearly saying that.

Do you think we should be thinking about a scenario here similar for instance to the one in Iraq and that this actually could that that military attack is actually going to happen whatever the cost?

– As regards to chemical weapons usage regardless of Israel and Saudi evidence supporting the threat of war to Obama’s advisors, Samantha Powers and Susan Rice, we know who uses chemical weapons.

The CIA de-classified a document that the US told Saddam to use them against Iran. The United States used them in Vietnam and Cambodia; in Fallujah in Iraq. It’s not normal for any country except the United States to use chemical weapons; and of course white phosphorus in Fallujah.

No, I think what the international community needs to do now is urgently support, ironically, the Syrian government in their quest to destroy the al-Qaeda-linked rebels.

What started as a pro-democracy movement has deteriorated into this Islamist al-Nusra Front getting larger and larger and these governments have to get…

The chemical weapons thing is about as important as the yellow cake in … – of course those pictures were terrible and appalling, but we must stop that from happening again.

The way to stop that from happening again, one would have to say based on reports from Carla Del Ponte … being attacked – the UN weapons inspector – is to support the government of President Assad.

– What is your prediction for what is going to happen from this stage on? Obama has been saying that without a UN mandate we are not going to attack, but it looks like they are really prepared for it.

Do you think that even if the United Nations doesn’t say who used the weapons or doesn’t give that mandate that we are going to see a military strike?

– American television is quoting White House sources as saying that Tomahawk missiles will be fired within 48 hours.

So I suppose the important thing now is to get the relatives of the thousands of US troops on the USS Mahan and USS Gravely, the USS Barry and the USS Ramage and tell them that the ferocious attack back at them from Russian Iskander missiles will be pretty ferocious and that the United States is endangering their troops yet again in a war that will have no victors.

Ghosts of Iraq War force UK to delay Syria strike

August 29, 2013 By administrator

Protestors rally against the proposed attack on Syria in central London.

Guy Faulconbridge and Andrew Osborn of Reuters

UK Prime Minister David Cameron was forced into backing off on his choice to join U.S. and French plans to punish Syria for a chemical weapon attack.

LONDON — Prime Minister David Cameron’s plans for an imminent military strike on Syria were in disarray Thursday after a revolt by lawmakers warning him to heed the “lessons of Iraq.”

After imploring the world not to stand idly by over Syria’s suspected use of chemical weapons, Cameron was forced into an awkward backing down Wednesday when the opposition Labour party and lawmakers in his own party said they wanted more evidence before voting for military action.

Related: Analysis: Strike on Syria could trigger retaliatory attacks

Thursday, Cameron’s government published legal advice it had been given which it said showed it was legally entitled to take military action against Syria even if the United Nations Security Council blocked such action.

It also published intelligence material on last week’s chemical weapons attack in Syria, saying there was no doubt that such an attack had taken place and that it was “highly likely” that the Syrian government had been behind the apparent poison gas attack that had killed hundreds.

Dogging Cameron’s steps is the memory of events a decade ago, when Britain helped the United States to invade Iraq after asserting — wrongly, as it later turned out — that President Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction.

Britain, already embroiled in Afghanistan, was sucked into a second quagmire and lost 179 troops in eight years of war after Iraq descended into savage sectarian conflict.

Related: Ban Ki-moon pleads for time on Syria investigation

It was the defining moment of Tony Blair’s 1997-2007 premiership, provoking huge protests, divisions within his Labour Party and accusations that his government misled the public by manufacturing the case for war.

“We have got to learn the lessons of Iraq because people remember the mistakes that were made in Iraq and I am not willing to make those mistakes again,” said Labour’s current leader Ed Miliband.

It was unclear how Cameron’s failure to master domestic British politics could affect U.S. and French plans for a swift cruise missile strike against Syria, which denies using chemical weapons against its citizens, or what the impact would be on Cameron’s standing in Washington.

President Barack Obama has made the case for a limited military strike on Syria, but some U.S. lawmakers say they have not been properly consulted.

Conservative officials were furious at the delay, accusing Miliband of opportunism.

Related: Obama makes case for punishing Syria, but possible delays loom

“Ed Miliband is playing politics when he should be thinking about the national interest and global security,” a Conservative source told Reuters. “He keeps changing his position, not out of principle but to achieve political advantage,” the source added, saying Cameron wanted to “do the right thing” in the right way.

PUBLIC OPPOSITION

The potent legacy of Iraq is reflected not only in party politics, but in public opinion surveys.

A YouGov poll published on Thursday showed opposition to action hardening, with 51 percent of the British public opposing a missile strike on Syria, and just 22 percent in favor of it. Opponents say Britain has neither the money nor the evidence to justify further military action in the Middle East.

“We do not have a great track record of intervention. There is no appetite for it in the country or really in the House of Commons,” said Andrew Bridgen, a lawmaker from Cameron’s Conservative party who opposes immediate military action.

Domestically, Cameron’s authority looks dented. Part of his problem is that he governs as part of a two-party coalition because his Conservatives lack an absolute majority in parliament, exposing him to such impromptu revolts.

When the prime minister recalled Parliament Tuesday and cut short his own summer break to deal with the Syrian crisis, his rhetoric indicated he was confident of securing parliamentary support for a vote on military action.

Related: Syria’s chemical weapons program was built to counter Israel

But as parliamentarians returned, the tone suddenly changed late Wednesday: dozens of lawmakers from his own party questioned the evidence of chemical weapons use and warned Cameron he could face defeat unless he toned down his plans.

After hours of negotiations between Cameron’s political managers and the opposition, his office agreed that the United Nations Security Council should see findings from chemical weapons inspectors before it responded militarily and that parliament should hold two votes on military action.

That means that parliament will vote Thursday on a government motion cautioning President Bashar Assad and authorizing military action in principle only.

It will need to vote again to authorize any direct military action, and Labour has tabled an amendment and said it will vote against the government. Syria wrote letters to British lawmakers urging them to avoid reckless action.

Cameron, who has the powers of a commander-in-chief, does not technically need Parliament’s support to order military action. But after tabling a debate and facing such a revolt, it would be hard for him to go against lawmakers’ wishes.

“The motion that we’re putting forward … reflects the Prime Minister’s recognition of the deep concerns in this country about what happened over Iraq,” said Foreign Secretary William Hague.

Britain is to send six RAF Typhoon air-to-air interceptor jets to its Akrotiri base in Cyprus Thursday, the Ministry of Defense said. Cyprus is just 62 miles from the Syrian coast. Britain also has warships in the Mediterranean.

Related: Syrian envoy alleges rebel gas attack, demands UN investigate

U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has sought more time for inspectors to complete their work, a step that could delay any strike as allies would be unlikely to attack with U.N. weapons inspectors on the ground.

“One of the most important lessons of Iraq is to give the United Nations the proper chance to do its work and I believe if we had tried to make that decision today on military action we wouldn’t have been giving the United Nations the proper time to do that work,” Labour’s Miliband said.

Additional reporting by Belinda Goldsmith, Costas Pitas and Will James in London and Michele Kambas in Cyprus

Bombing Syria would make US pilots ‘Al-Qaeda’s air force’ – Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH)

August 28, 2013 By administrator

A ‘targeted strike’ on Syria by the US would be nothing but an act of war, former Congressman Dennis Kucinich said, adding that an airstrike on President Assad’s anti-radical Islamist forces would mean the US Air Force was supporting Al-Qaeda.

Kucinich, a prominent anti-war politician who has consistently opposed America’s military involvement in Iraq and Libya, warned that President Barack Obama would be violating the US Constitution if he took military action against Syria without authorization from Congress.

An airstrike on Syria would also embolden multinational jihadists with links to Al-Qaeda, warned Kucinich, a four-time Congressman who was a longshot contender for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004 and 2008. For the US, that would mean being dragged into yet another war in the Middle East, he said.
“So what, we’re about to become Al-Qaeda’s air force now?” said Kucinich. “This is a very, very serious matter that has broad implications internationally. And to try to minimize it by saying we’re just going to have a ‘targeted strike’ — that’s an act of war. It’s not something to be trifled with.”

Kucinich, who stood down in January after losing the Democratic nomination for his seat in the House of Representatives, said he doubted the allegations that President Assad had used chemical weapons against his own people.

“This is being used as a pretext,” he said. “The verdict is in before the facts have been gathered. What does that tell you?” said Kucinich, adding that the Obama administration was “rushing” toward a possible “World War 3.”

Questions from Congress

While Kucinich is one of the most consistent opponents of US intervention in the Middle East, he is not the only US politician to question military action against Syria.

While US Secretary of State John Kerry has pointed to “undeniable” evidence of Assad’s involvement in the chemical attack in Damascus, and White House spokesman Jay Carney has accused Assad of violating “an international standard,” a number of US lawmakers have questioned spoken military strikes on Syria without the issue being brought before Congress.
Twenty-one Republicans and one Democrat have signed onto a House letter to President Obama demanding that any military action must be signed off on by Congress.

“Engaging our military in Syria when no direct threat to the United States exists and without prior congressional authorization would violate the separation of powers that is clearly delineated in the Constitution,” says the letter, which was initiated by Republican Congressman Scott Rigell.

“Before engaging in a military strike against Assad’s forces, the United States must understand that this action will likely draw us into a much wider and much longer-term conflict that could mean an even greater loss of life within Syria,” said Senator Chris Murphy, urging the Obama administration to “continue to exercise restraint, because absent an imminent threat to America’s national security, the U.S. should not take military action without Congressional authorization.”

“Congress must be engaged and we must be sensitive to the needs of the American people and the Syrian people,” Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee said.

The Syrian government has warned that an assault on the country would not be easy for Western powers.

“We have two options: either to surrender, or to defend ourselves with the means at our disposal ,” Foreign Minister Walid Muallem told a televised news conference. “The second choice is the best: we will defend ourselves.”

» Syria: Another Western War Crime In The Making — Paul Craig Roberts

August 28, 2013 By administrator

By: Paul Craig Roberts
Update:

The war criminals in Washington and other Western capitals are determined to maintain their lie that the Syrian government used chemical weapons. Having failed in efforts to intimidate the UN chemical inspectors in Syria, Washington has demanded that UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon withdraw the chemical weapons inspectors before they can assess the evidence and make their report. The UN Secretary General stood up to the Washington war criminals and rejected their demand. However, as with Iraq, Washington’s decision to commit aggression against Syria is not based on any facts. http://rt.com/op-edge/syria-un-war-investigation-006/

The US and UK governments have revealed none of the “conclusive evidence” they claim to have that the Syrian government used chemical weapons. Listening to their voices, observing their body language, and looking into their eyes, it is completely obvious that John Kerry and his British and German puppets are lying through their teeth. This is a far more shameful situation than the massive lies that former Secretary of State Colin Powell told the UN about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Colin Powell claims that he was deceived by the White House and did not know that he was lying. Kerry and the British, French, and German puppets know full well that they are lying.

The face that the West presents to the world is the brazen face of a liar.

Washington and its British and French puppet governments are poised to yet again reveal their criminality. The image of the West as War Criminal is not a propaganda image created by the West’s enemies, but the portrait that the West has painted of itself.

The UK Independent reports that over this past week-end Obama, Cameron, and Hollande agreed to launch cruise missile attacks against the Syrian government within two weeks despite the lack of any authorization from the UN and despite the absence of any evidence in behalf of Washington’s claim that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons against the Washington-backed “rebels”, largely US supported external forces, seeking to overthrow the Syrian government.

Indeed, one reason for the rush to war is to prevent the UN inspection that Washington knows would disprove its claim and possibly implicate Washington in the false flag attack by the “rebels,” who assembled a large number of children into one area to be chemically murdered with the blame pinned by Washington on the Syrian government.

Another reason for the rush to war is that Cameron, the UK prime minister, wants to get the war going before the British parliament can block him for providing cover for Obama’s war crimes the way that Tony Blair provided cover for George W. Bush, for which Blair was duly rewarded. What does Cameron care about Syrian lives when he can leave office into the waiting arms of a $50 million fortune.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syria-un-weapons-inspectors-attacked-as-they-try-to-enter-poison-gas-attack-site-8784435.html

The Syrian government, knowing that it is not responsible for the chemical weapons incident, has agreed for the UN to send in chemical inspectors to determine the substance used and the method of delivery. However, Washington has declared that it is “too late” for UN inspectors and that Washington accepts the self-serving claim of the al Qaeda affiliated “rebels” that the Syrian government attacked civilians with chemical weapons. http://news.antiwar.com/2013/08/25/obama-administration-accepts-rebels-account-on-syria-prepares-for-war/ See also http://news.antiwar.com/2013/08/25/syria-accepts-un-inspectors-us-spurns-call-as-too-late/

In an attempt to prevent the UN chemical inspectors who arrived on the scene from doing their work, the inspectors were fired upon by snipers in “rebel” held territory and forced off site, although a later report from RT says the inspectors have returned to the site to conduct their inspection. http://rt.com/news/un-chemical-oservers-shot-000/

The corrupt British government has declared that Syria can be attacked without UN authorization, just as Serbia and Libya were militarily attacked without UN authorization. In other words, the Western democracies have already established precedents for violating international law. “International law? We don’t need no stinking international law!” The West knows only one rule: Might is Right. As long as the West has the Might, the West has the Right.

In a response to the news report that the US, UK, and France are preparing to attack Syria, the Russian Foreign Minister, Lavrov, said that such unilateral action is a “severe violation of international law,” and that the violation was not only a legal one but also an ethical and moral violation. Lavrov referred to the lies and deception used by the West to justify its grave violations of international law in military attacks on Serbia, Iraq, and Libya and how the US government used preemptive moves to undermine every hope for peaceful settlements in Iraq, Libya, and Syria.

Once again Washington has preempted any hope of peaceful settlement. By announcing the forthcoming attack, the US destroyed any incentive for the “rebels” to participate in the peace talks with the Syrian government. On the verge of these talks taking place, the “rebels” now have no incentive to participate as the West’s military is coming to their aid.

In his press conference Lavrov spoke of how the ruling parties in the US, UK, and France stir up emotions among poorly informed people that, once aroused, have to be satisfied by war. This, of course, is the way the US manipulated the public in order to attack Afghanistan and Iraq. But the American public is tired of the wars, the goal of which is never made clear, and has grown suspicious of the government’s justifications for more wars.

A Reuters/Ipsos poll finds that “Americans strongly oppose U.S. intervention in Syria’s civil war and believe Washington should stay out of the conflict even if reports that Syria’s government used deadly chemicals to attack civilians are confirmed.” http://news.yahoo.com/syria-war-escalates-americans-cool-u-intervention-reuters-003146054.html However, Obama could not care less that only 9 percent of the public supports his warmongering. As former president Jimmy Carter recently stated, “America has no functioning democracy.” http://rt.com/usa/carter-comment-nsa-snowden-261/ It has a police state in which the executive branch has placed itself above all law and the Constitution.

This police state is now going to commit yet another Nazi-style war crime of unprovoked aggression. At Nuremberg the Nazis were sentenced to death for precisely the identical actions being committed by Obama, Cameron, and Hollande. The West is banking on might, not right, to keep it out of the criminal dock.

The US, UK, and French governments have not explained why it matters whether people in the wars initiated by the West are killed by explosives made of depleted uranium or with chemical agents or any other weapon. It was obvious from the beginning that Obama was setting up the Syrian government for attack. Obama demonized chemical weapons–but not nuclear “bunker busters” that the US might use on Iran. Then Obama drew a red line, saying that the use of chemical weapons by the Syrians was such a great crime that the West would be obliged to attack Syria. Washington’s UK puppets, William Hague and Cameron, have just repeated this nonsensical claim. http://rt.com/news/uk-response-without-un-backing-979/ The final step in the frame-up was to orchestrate a chemical incident and blame the Syrian government.

What is the West’s real agenda? This is the unasked and unanswered question. Clearly, the US, UK, and French governments, which have displayed continuously their support for dictatorial regimes that serve their purposes, are not the least disturbed by dictatorships. They brand Assad a dictator as a means of demonizing him for the ill-informed Western masses. But Washington, UK, and France support any number of dictatorial regimes, such as the ones in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and now the military dictatorship in Egypt that is ruthlessly killing Egyptians without any Western government speaking of invading Egypt for “killing its own people.”

Clearly also, the forthcoming Western attack on Syria has nothing whatsoever to do with bringing “freedom and democracy” to Syria any more than freedom and democracy were reasons for the attacks on Iraq and Libya, neither of which gained any “freedom and democracy.”

The Western attack on Syria is unrelated to human rights, justice or any of the high sounding causes with which the West cloaks its criminality.

The Western media, and least of all the American presstitutes, never ask Obama, Cameron, or Hollande what the real agenda is. It is difficult to believe than any reporter is sufficiently stupid or gullible to believe that the agenda is bringing “freedom and democracy” to Syria or punishing Assad for allegedly using chemical weapons against murderous thugs trying to overthrow the Syrian government.

Of course, the question wouldn’t be answered if asked. But the act of asking it would help make the public aware that more is afoot than meets the eye. Originally, the excuse for Washington’s wars was to keep Americans safe from terrorists. Now Washington is endeavoring to turn Syria over to jihad terrorists by helping them to overthrow the secular, non-terrorist Assad government. What is the agenda behind Washington’s support of terrorism?

Perhaps the purpose of the wars is to radicalize Muslims and, thereby, destabilize Russia and even China. Russia has large populations of Muslims and is bordered by Muslim countries. Even China has some Muslim population. As radicalization spreads strife into the only two countries capable of being an obstacle to Washington’s world hegemony, Western media propaganda and the large number of US financed NGOs, posing as “human rights” organizations, can be counted on by Washington to demonize the Russian and Chinese governments for harsh measures against “rebels.”

Another advantage of the radicalization of Muslims is that it leaves former Muslim countries in long-term turmoil or civil wars, as is currently the case in Iraq and Libya, thus removing any organized state power from obstructing Israeli purposes.

Secretary of State John Kerry is working the phones using bribes and threats to build acceptance, if not support, for Washington’s war crime-in-the-making against Syria.

Washington is driving the world closer to nuclear war than it ever was even in the most dangerous periods of the Cold War. When Washington finishes with Syria, the next target is Iran. Russia and China will no longer be able to fool themselves that there is any system of international law or restraint on Western criminality. Western aggression is already forcing both countries to develop their strategic nuclear forces and to curtail the Western-financed NGOs that pose as “human rights organizations,” but in reality comprise a fifth column that Washington can use to destroy the legitimacy of the Russian and Chinese governments.

Russia and China have been extremely careless in their dealings with the United States. Essentially, the Russian political opposition is financed by Washington. Even the Chinese government is being undermined. When a US corporation opens a company in China, it creates a Chinese board on which are put relatives of the local political authorities. These boards create a conduit for payments that influence the decisions and loyalties of local and regional party members. The US has penetrated Chinese universities and intellectual attitudes. The Rockefeller University is active in China as is Rockefeller philanthropy. Dissenting voices are being created that are arrayed against the Chinese government. Demands for “liberalization” can resurrect regional and ethnic differences and undermine the cohesiveness of the national government.

Once Russia and China realize that they are riven with American fifth columns, isolated diplomatically, and outgunned militarily, nuclear weapons become the only guarantor of their sovereignty. This suggests that nuclear war is likely to terminate humanity well before humanity succumbs to global warming or rising national debts.

Paul Craig Roberts has had careers in scholarship and academia, journalism, public service, and business. He is chairman of The Institute for Political Economy. Dr. Roberts was awarded the Treasury Department’s Meritorious Service Award for “his outstanding contributions to the formulation of United States economic policy.”

In 1987 the French government recognized him as “the artisan of a renewal in economic science and policy after half a century of state interventionism” and inducted him into the Legion of Honor.

RT:Obama reportedly considering two-day strike on Syria

August 27, 2013 By administrator

White House officials say the United States may launch a limited military strike on Syria as early as this Thursday as the intelligence community prepares to release a report justifying action and allies are rallied.

Senior officials in the Obama administration told the Washington Post for an article published on Tuesday that the White House is weighing a limited strike on Syria and said on condition of anonymity that “We’re actively looking at the various legal angles that would inform a decision.”

According to the Post, the likely response from Washington would be a sea-to-land strike from the Mediterranean that would last no longer than two days and would not be directed towards targets where the chemical weapons arsenal is believed to be stored.

But while an attack is all but imminent and will likely be launched from warships already mobilized in the Mediterranean by the week’s end, public support in the US has teetered towards nil as of late. The Obama administration says there is undeniable proof that chemical weapons were used on civilians outside of Damascus on August 21, but a five-day-long Reuters poll taken during that time concluded only nine percent of Americans favor intervention.
Notwithstanding that lack of support, US Secretary of State John Kerry hinted Monday at a response which will jolt Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and ideally worsen the odds that his regime will implement chemical warheads again.

Despite insistence from Assad and allies in Russia that the Syrian government is not guilty of using chemical weapons, Sec. Kerry said during a press conference on Monday that “our understanding of what has already happened in Syria is grounded in facts, informed by conscious and guided by common sense.” Kerry called Assad’s reported attempt to cover-up the alleged use of chemical weapons “cynical” and said, “President Obama believes there must be accountability for those who would use the world’s heinous weapons against the world’s most vulnerable people.”

One day earlier, Sec. Kerry admitted that Pres. Obama was considering his options with regards to a strike and was to meet with lawmakers in Congress as well as with international leaders. According to the Post article, however, the president may forego getting approval from Capitol Hill and will instead rely on striking Syria due to “undeniable,” as the White House puts it, war crimes.

“The administration has said that it will follow international law in shaping its response,” Karen DeYoung and Anne Gearan wrote for the Post, adding, “But much of international law is untested, and administration lawyers are also examining possible legal justifications based on a violation of international prohibitions on chemical weapons use, or on an appeal for assistance from a neighboring nation such as Turkey.” Additionally, the US has already received assurance of support from Britain, France and Turkey.
According to senior administration officials who spoke to CBS News on condition of anonymity, Pres. Obama met with his national security team this past weekend and has ordered that a declassified intelligence report showing the rationale for any attack on Syria be released before it occurs.

While only nine percent of the respondents polled in the Reuters survey between August 19 and 23 said they want the White House to respond to Assad’s reported use of chemical weapons immediately, 25 percent said they would favor intervention if the US concludes with certainty that those warheads were illegally used. A Reuters/Ipsos poll from earlier in the month found that 30.2 percent of Americans would support intervention if Assad is linked to using chemical weapons.

Sec. Kerry said the indiscriminate slaughter of women and children apparently being carried out by the Assad regime constitutes a “moral obscenity.”

Bashar al-Assad: All contracts signed with Russia are implemented (exclusive interview with Izvestia,)

August 27, 2013 By administrator

Izvestia Intervew

In an exclusive interview with Izvestia, President of the Syrian Arab Republic told about threat of US invasion, about his relationship with Putin and about common fate of Russian and Syrian peoples.

Interviewer: Mr President, the most pressing question today is the current situation in Syria. What parts of the country remain under the rebels’ control?

President Assad: From our perspective, it’s not a matter of labelling areas as controlled by terrorists or by the government; we are not dealing with a conventional occupation to allow us to contextualise it in this manner. We are fighting terrorists infiltrating particular regions, towns or peripheral city areas. They wreak havoc, vandalise, destroy infrastructure and kill innocent civilians simply because they denounce them. The army mobilises into these areas with the security forces and law enforcement agencies to eradicate the terrorists, those who survive relocate to other areas. Therefore, the essence of our action is striking terrorism.

Our challenge, which has protracted the situation, is the influx of large amounts of terrorists from other countries – estimated in the tens of thousands at the very least. As long as they continue to receive financial and military aid, we will continue to strike them. I can confirm that there has not been any instance where the Syrian Army has planned to enter a particular location and has not succeeded in eliminating the terrorists within it.

The majority of those we are fighting are Takfiris, who adopt the al-Qaeda doctrine, in addition to a small number of outlaws, so as I said this not about who controls more areas of land. Wherever terrorism strikes, we shall strike back.

Interviewer: Yet, Western mainstream media claim that the terrorists control 40% to 70% of Syrian territory; what is the reality?

President Assad: There isn’t an army in the world that can be present with its armament in every corner of any given country. The terrorists exploit this, and violate areas where the army is not present. They escape from one area to another, and we continue to eradicate them from these areas with great success. Therefore, I reiterate, the issue is not the size of the territories they infiltrate but the large influx of terrorists coming from abroad.

The more significant criteria to evaluate success is – has the Syrian Army been able to enter any area infiltrated by terrorists and defeat them? Most certainly the answer is yes; the army has always succeeded in this and continues to do so. However, this takes time because these types of wars do not end suddenly, they protract for prolonged periods and as such carry a heavy price. Even when we have eradicated all the terrorists, we will have paid a hefty price.

Interviewer: Mr President, you have spoken of Islamist Takfiri extremists’ fighters who have entered Syria. Are they fragmented groups who fight sporadically? Or do they belong to a coherent major force that seeks to destroy the security and stability in Syria and the whole Middle East?

President Assad: They have both traits. They are similar in that they all share the same extremist Takfiri doctrine of certain individuals such as Zawahiri; they also have similar or identical financial backing and military support. They differ on the ground in that they are incoherent and scattered with each group adhering to a separate leader and pursuing different agendas. Of course it is well known that countries, such as Saudi Arabia, who hold the purse strings can shape and manipulate them to suit their own interests.

Ideologically, these countries mobilise them through direct or indirect means as extremist tools. If they declare that Muslims must pursue Jihad in Syria, thousands of fighters will respond. Financially, those who finance and arm such groups can instruct them to carry out acts of terrorism and spread anarchy. The influence over them is synergised when a country such as Saudi Arabia directs them through both the Wahhabi ideology and their financial means.

Interviewer: The Syrian government claims a strong link between Israel and the terrorists. How can you explain this? It is commonly perceived that the extremist Islamists loathe Israel and become hysterical upon hearing its name.

President Assad: If this was the case, why is it then that when we strike the terrorists at the frontier, Israel strikes at our forces to alleviate the pressure off of them? Why, when we blockade them into an area does Israel let them through their barricades so they can come round and re-attack from another direction? Why has Israel carried out direct strikes against the Syrian Army on more than one occasion in recent months? So clearly this perception is inaccurate. It is Israel who has publically declared its cooperation with these terrorists and treated them in Israeli hospitals.

If these terrorist groups were indeed hostile to Israel and hysterical even on the mention of the word as you mention, why have they fought the Soviet Union, Syria and Egypt, whilst never carrying out a single strike against Israel? Who originally created these terrorist groups? These groups were initially created in the early 80’s by the United States and the West, with Saudi funding, to fight the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. So logically speaking, how could such groups manufactured by the US and the West ever strike Israel!

Interviewer: Mr. President, this interview will be translated into several international languages, and shall be read by world leaders, some who may currently be working against you. What would you like to say to them?

President Assad: Today there are many Western politicians, but very few statesmen. Some of these politicians do not read history or even learn from it, whilst others do not even remember recent events. Have these politicians learned any lessons from the past 50 years at least? Have they not realised that since the Vietnam War, all the wars their predecessors have waged have failed? Have they not learned that they have gained nothing from these wars but the destruction of the countries they fought, which has had a destabilising effect on the Middle East and other parts of the world? Have they not comprehended that all of these wars have not made people in the region appreciate them or believe in their policies?

From another perspective, these politicians should know that terrorism is not a winning card you play when it suits you and keep it in your pocket when it doesn’t. Terrorism is like a scorpion; it can unexpectedly sting you at any time. Therefore, you cannot support terrorism in Syria whilst fighting it in Mali; you cannot support terrorism in Chechnya and fight it in Afghanistan.

To be very precise, I am referring to the West and not all world leaders, if these western leaders are looking to achieve their interests, they need to listen to their own constituents and to the people in this region rather than seeking to install ‘puppet’ leaders, in the hope that they would be able to deliver their objectives. In doing so, western policy may become more realistic in the region.

Our message to the world is straightforward: Syria will never become a Western ‘puppet’ state. We are an independent country; we will fight terrorism and we will freely build relationships with countries in a way that best serves the interests of the Syrian people.

Interviewer: On Wednesday, the rebels accused the Syrian government of using chemical weapons; some Western leaders adopted these accusations. What is your response to this? Will you allow the UN inspectors access to the site to investigate the incident?

President Assad: The statements by the American administration, the West and other countries were made with disdain and blatant disrespect of their own public opinion; there isn’t a body in the world, let alone a superpower, that makes an accusation and then goes about collecting evidence to prove its point. The American administration made the accusation on Wednesday and two days later announced that they would start to collect the evidence – what evidence is it going to gather from afar?!

They claim that the area in question is under the control of the rebels and that the Syrian Army used chemical weapons. In fact, the area is in contiguity with the Syrian Army positions, so how is it possible that any country would use chemical weapons, or any weapons of mass destruction, in an area where its own forces are located; this is preposterous! These accusations are completely politicised and come on the back of the advances made by the Syrian Army against the terrorists.

As for the UN Commission, we were the first to request a UN investigation when terrorists launched rockets that carried toxic gas in the outskirts of Aleppo. Several months before the attack, American and Western statements were already preparing public opinion of the potential use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government. This raised our suspicion that they were aware of the terrorists’ intentions to use these weapons in order to blame the Syrian government. After liaising with Russia, we decided to request a commission to investigate the incident. Whereas we requested an investigation based on the facts on the ground, not on rumours or allegations; the US, France and the UK have tried to exploit the incident to investigate allegations rather than happenings.

During the last few weeks, we have worked with the Commission and set the guidelines for cooperation. First of these, is that our national sovereignty is a red line and as such the Commission will directly liaise with us during the process. Second, the issue is not only how the investigation will be conducted but also how the results will be interpreted. We are all aware that instead of being interpreted in an objective manner, these results could easily be interpreted according to the requirements and agendas of certain major countries. Certainly, we expect Russia to block any interpretation that aims to serve American and western policies. What is most important is that we differentiate between western accusations that are based on allegations and hearsay and our request for an investigation based on concrete evidence and facts.

Interviewer: Recent statements by the American administration and other Western governments have stated that the US has not ruled out military intervention in Syria. In light of this, is it looking more likely that the US would behave in the same way it did in Iraq, in other words look for a pretext for military intervention?

President Assad: This is not the first time that the possibility of military intervention has been raised. From the outset, the US, along with France and Britain, has strived for military intervention in Syria. Unfortunately for them, events took a different course with the balance shifting against their interests in the Security Council despite their numerous attempts to haggle with Russia and China, but to no avail. The negative outcomes that emerged in Libya and Egypt were also not in their favour. All of this made it impossible for them to convince their constituents and the world that they were following sound or successful policies.

The situation in Libya also differs to that of Egypt and Tunisia, and Syria as I have said is very different from all these. Each country has a unique situation and applying the same scenario across the board is no longer a plausible option. No doubt they can wage wars, but they cannot predict where they will spread or how they will end. This has led them to realise that all their crafted scenarios have now spiralled out of their control.

It is now crystal clear to everybody that what is happening in Syria is not a popular revolution pushing for political reform, but targeted terrorism aimed at destroying the Syrian state. What will they say to their people when pushing for military intervention: we are intervening in Syria to support terrorism against the state?!

Interviewer: What will America face should it decide on military intervention or on waging a war on Syria?

President Assad: What it has been confronted with in every war since Vietnam… failure. America has waged many wars, but has never been able to achieve its political objectives from any of them. It will also not be able to convince the American people of the benefits of this war, nor will it be able to convince the people in this region of their policies and plans. Global powers can wage wars, but can they win them?

Interviewer: Mr. President, how is your relationship with President Vladimir Putin? Do you speak on the phone? If so, what do you discuss?

President Assad: I have a strong relationship with President Putin, which spans back many years even before the crisis. We contact each other from time to time, although the complexity of events in Syria cannot be discussed on the phone. Our relationship is facilitated through Russian and Syrian officials who exchange visits, the majority of which are conducted away from the glare of the media.

Interviewer: Mr. President, are you planning to visit Russia or invite President Putin to visit Syria?

President Assad: It is possible of course; however the current priorities are to work towards easing the violence in Syria, there are casualties on a daily basis. When circumstances improve, a visit will be necessary; for now, our officials are managing this relationship well.

Interviewer: Mr. President, Russia is opposing the US and EU policies, especially with regards to Syria, what would happen were Russia to make a compromise now? Is such a scenario possible?

President Assad: Russian-American relations should not be viewed through the context of the Syrian crisis alone; it should be viewed in a broader and more comprehensive manner. The US presumed that with the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia was perpetually destroyed. After President Putin took office in the late 90s, Russia began to gradually recover and regain its international position; hence the Cold War began again, but in a different and subtler manner.

The US persisted on many fronts: striving to contain Russian interests in the world, attempting to influence the mentality of Russians closer to the West both in terms of culture and aspiration. It worked diligently to eliminate Russia’s vital and powerful role on many fronts, one of which is Syria.

You may be wondering, like many Russians, why Russia continues to stand by Syria. It is important to explain this reason to the general public: Russia is not defending President Bashar al-Assad or the Syrian government, since the Syrian people should decide their president and the most suitable political system – this is not the issue. Russia is defending the fundamental principles it has embraced for more than a hundred years, the first of which is independence and the policy of non-interference in internal affairs. Russia itself has suffered and continues to suffer from such interference.

Additionally, Russia is defending its legitimate interests in the region. Some superficial analysts narrow these interests to the Port of Tartous, but in reality Russia’s interests are far more significant. Politically speaking, when terrorism strikes Syria, a key country in the region, it would have a direct impact on stability in the Middle East, which would subsequently affect Russia. Unlike many western governments, the Russian leadership fully understands this reality. From a social and cultural perspective, we must not forget the tens of thousands of Syrian-Russian families, which create a social, cultural and humanitarian bridge between our two countries.

If Russia were to seek a compromise, as you stipulated, this would have happened one or two years ago when the picture was blurred, even for some Russian officials. Today, the picture is crystal clear. Russia that didn’t make a compromise back then, would not do so now.

Interviewer: Mr. President, are there any negotiations with Russia to supply fuel or military hardware to Syria? With regards to the S-300 defence system contract in particular, have you received it?

President Assad: Of course, no country would publically declare what armaments and weapons it possesses, or the contracts it signs in this respect. This is strictly classified information concerning the Armed Forces. Suffice to say that all contracts signed with Russia are being honoured and neither the crisis nor the pressure from the US, European or Gulf countries’ have affected their implementation. Russia continues to supply Syria with what it requires to defend itself and its people.

Interviewer: Mr President, what form of aid does Syria require from Russia today? Is it financial or perhaps military equipment? For example would Syria request a loan from Russia?

President Assad: In the absence of security on the ground, it is impossible to have a functioning and stable economy. So firstly, the support that Russia is providing through agreed military contracts to help Syrians defend themselves will lead to better security, which will in turn help facilitate an economic recovery. Secondly, Russia’s political support for our right of independence and sovereignty has also played a significant role. Many other countries have turned against us politically and translated this policy by cutting economic ties and closing their markets. Russia has done the complete opposite and continues to maintain good trading relations with us, which has helped keep our economy functioning. Therefore in response to your question, Russia’s supportive political stance and its commitment to honour the agreed military contracts without surrendering to American pressure have substantially aided our economy, despite the negative bearings the economic embargo – imposed by others, has had on the lives of the Syrian people.

From a purely economic perspective, there are several agreements between Syria and Russia for various goods and materials. As for a loan from Russia, this should be viewed as beneficial to both parties: for Russia it is an opportunity for its national industries and companies to expand into new markets, for Syria it provides some of the funding necessary to rebuild our infrastructure and stimulate our economy. I reiterate that Russia’s political stance and support have been instrumental in restoring security and providing the basic needs for the Syrian people.

Interviewer: Mr. President, do these contracts relate to fuel or basic food requirements?

President Assad: Syrian citizens are being targeted through their basic food, medical and fuel requirements. The Syrian government is working to ensure these basic needs are available to all Syrians through trade agreements with Russia and other friendly countries.

Interviewer: Returning to the situation in Syria and the current crisis. We are aware that you successively issue amnesties. Do these amnesties include rebels? And do some of them subsequently change sides to fight with the Armed Forces?

President Assad: Yes, this is in fact the case. Recently, there has been a marked shift, especially since the picture has become clearer to many that what is happening in Syria is sheer terrorism. Many have come back into the mainstream of civil life, surrendering their weapons and benefitting from the amnesties to help them return to their normal lives. Most remarkably, there are certain groups who have switched from fighting against the army to fighting beside it; these people were either misled by what was propagated in the media or were initially militarised under threats from the terrorists. It is for this very reason that from the start of the crisis, the Syrian government has adopted an open door policy to all those who wanted to U-turn on the initial route they took against their country. Despite the fact that many people in Syria were opposed to this policy, it has proven to be effective and has helped alleviate some of the tension from the crisis.

Interviewer: Mr. President, Syria’s relations with several states are collapsing consecutively, such as Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Who are your true allies, and who are your enemies?

President Assad:The countries that support us are well known to everyone: internationally – Russia and China, regionally – Iran. However, we are starting to see a positive shift on the international arena. Certain countries that were strongly against Syria have begun to change their positions; others have started to reinitiate relations with us. Of course, the changes in these countries’ positions do not constitute direct support.

In contrast, there are particular countries that have directly mobilised and buttressed terrorism in Syria. Predominantly Qatar and Turkey in the first two years; Qatar financed while Turkey provided logistical support by training terrorists and streaming them into Syria. Recently, Saudi Arabia has replaced Qatar in the funding role. To be completely clear and transparent, Saudi Arabia has nothing but funding; those who only have money cannot build a civilisation or nurture it. Saudi Arabia implements its agenda depending on how much money it commands.

Turkey is a different case. It is pitiful that a great country such as Turkey, which bears a strategic location and a liberal society, is being manipulated by a meagre amount of dollars through a Gulf state harbouring a regressive mentality. It is of course the Turkish Prime Minister who shoulders responsibility for this situation and not the Turkish people with whom we share a great deal of heritage and traditions.

Interviewer: Mr. President, what makes Russian-Syrian relations so strong? Is it geopolitical interests? Or that they jointly share a struggle against terrorism?

President Assad: There is more than one factor that forges Syrian-Russian relations so strongly. First of which is that Russia has suffered from occupation during World War II and Syria has been occupied more than once. Secondly, since the Soviet era, Russia has been subjected to continuous and repeated attempts of foreign intervention in its internal affairs; this is also the case with Syria.

Thirdly but no less significantly is terrorism. In Syria, we understand well what it means when extremists from Chechnya kill innocent civilians, what it means to hold under siege children and teachers in Beslan or hold innocent people hostage in Moscow’s theatre. Equally, the Russian people understand when we in Syria refer to the identical acts of terrorism they have suffered. It is for this reason that the Russian people reject the Western narrative of “good terrorists and bad terrorists.”

In addition to these areas, there are also the Syrian-Russian family ties I mentioned earlier, which would not have developed without common cultural, social and intellectual characteristics, as well as the geopolitical interests we also spoke of. Russia, unlike the Europeans and the West, is well aware of the consequences of destabilising Syria and the region and the affect this will have on the inexorable spread of terrorism.

All of these factors collectively shape the political stance of a great country like Russia. Its position is not founded on one or two elements, but rather by a comprehensive historical, cultural and intellectual perspective.

Interviewer: Mr. President, what will occur in Geneva 2, what are your expectations from this conference?

President Assad: The objective of the Geneva conference is to support the political process and facilitate a political solution to the crisis. However, this cannot be accomplished before halting the foreign support to terrorism. We expect that the Geneva conference would start applying pressure on the countries supporting terrorism in Syria, to stop the smuggling of weapons and the streaming of foreign terrorists into the country. When this is achieved, political steps can be easily pursued, most imperative of which is initiating a dialogue between Syrians to discuss the future political system, the constitution, various legislations and others.

Interviewer: Thank you for your sincerity and for such a transparent discussion during this interview.