NATO To Bypass UN Security Council On Syria
Let’s look at how the F/UK/US-GCC prepares to f*ck us and the Syrians, as Russian FM Lavrov had warned on Tuesday…
…After a meeting in Geneva between representatives of the five member countries of the UN (United Nations) and others bordering Syria, a spokesman for the U.S. State Department, Patrick Ventrell, said the absence of a resolution does not impede the actions of the United States.
“Three times Russia and China blocked the resolutions on Syria in the UN. We tried to convince them to change their position, but could not,” Ventrell said last June. “We have to continue working under the aegis of the United Nations, but we also have a broader strategy that should be respected. We do not intend to stop doing our job just because there is no resolution,” added Ventrell.
“The United States has expressed its intention to intervene, ignoring the UN Security Council,” countered the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov…
“I believe that the statements from Washington and other capitals that the declaration of Geneva is a dead letter are completely irresponsible. This document represents the most important consensus reached in cooperation with western countries, Russia, China, Turkey and the main Arab countries,” said the Russian minister.
Lavrov added that there is an extremely complex ethnic and religious mix in Syria. “Minorities who gather around Assad expecting help in protecting their rights, are also part of the Syrian people,” he said…
Here’s some of the ‘plans’ that are being bandied about…
First, from the misnomer, the United States Institute of Peace (USIP)(PDF!)…
…The Day After project brought together a group of Syrians representing a large spectrum of the Syrian opposition—including senior representatives of the Syrian National Council (SNC), members of the Local Coordination Committees in Syria (LCC), and unaffiliated opposition figures from inside Syria and the Diaspora representing all major political trends and components of Syrian society—to participate in an independent transition planning process.
During the period from January to June 2012, this group of approximately 45 Syrian participants, supported by leading international experts in transition planning, convened six times to develop a shared vision of Syria’s democratic future, define goals and principles of a transition, and to prepare a detailed yet flexible transition planning document. Participants met in plenary as well as intensive working group sessions. While each of the six working groups focused on the specific challenges in the respective policy field, all of the groups were guided by a shared commitment to clearly defined goals and principles…
Good luck with that USIP, this kinda puts the kibosh on that little charade… Syria opposition group not up to challenge, says ex-member…
“The groups inside the council did not all behave as one in promoting one national project,” Kodmani said. “Some have given too much attention to their own partisan agendas, some to their personal agendas sometimes. That resulted in a major weakness in connecting closely with the groups on the ground and providing the needed support in all forms.”
Anyways, it seems the Rand Corporation has long since dispensed with the farcical notion of it being any sort of a ‘humanitarian intervention’…
…Assad’s overthrow would be a major strategic defeat for Iran, weakening the country’s international standing and dealing a heavy blow to the so-called “axis of resistance” — Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah. Conversely, Assad’s survival — or even a protracted civil war — would be seen as a US defeat, which could have serious regional consequences, including increased Iranian intransigence.
In this environment, the US needs a more activist, assertive policy toward Syria aimed at ending the conflict in such a way that bolsters regional stability and facilitates a peaceful democratic transition. This policy should include three crucial elements.
-The US should provide opposition forces with increased intelligence and communication equipment, thereby enabling them to coordinate their attacks more effectively.
-The US should supply arms, ammunition, and logistical support to the opposition, beyond what Saudi Arabia and Qatar currently are providing. Additional weapons — including anti-tank guided missiles, mortars, and sniper rifles — would enable the opposition to launch effective attacks from a distance, and challenge the pro-Assad forces’ air supremacy.
-America and its key allies should help to train the opposition forces to operate these weapons. The training provided by France, Britain, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates played a critical role last year in shifting the balance in favor of Libyan opposition forces, and it could have a similar impact in Syria.
To be sure, the US would have to monitor carefully the flow of arms in order to ensure that they end up in the right hands. It should also coordinate its scions with key regional allies, especially Turkey.
Funny how the Grey Lady deemed it necessary to report on this little outfit yesterday, eh…?
Syrian Émigrés Seek Aid in U.S. to Arm Rebels
From a one-room office in an unfinished glass tower three blocks from the White House, an amorphous network of activists is doing what the Obama administration will not: attempting to arm the rebels trying to overthrow Syria’s government…
From the UK’s Telegraph…
Britain and US plan a Syrian revolution from an innocuous office block in Istanbul
An underground network of Syrian opposition activists is receiving training and supplies of vital equipment from a combined American and British effort to forge an effective alternative to the Damascus regime.
Let’s not forget about the French…
UK, France not ruling out military option for Syria
Though UN resolution allowing military no-fly zone unlikely ‘at this time,’ two nations said to be in ‘unity’ on options, including NATO military enforcement…
In a honest analysis, Brandeis Professors Eva Bellin and Peter Krause, lay out what is truly needed if we are indeed acting in a moral Humanitarian fashion…
…The first impulse among many leading activists and scholars was to call
for intervention with force. As some opinion makers in the U.S. argued: What
is the point of having great power if that power is not used to great ends?3 A
consortium of forces in the international community, it is argued, could easily
demolish Assad’s third-rate army, so why not step in and be done with it? But
careful assessments of conditions on the ground have forced most sober analysts
to retreat from this position. The Syrian military, while no match for the full
firepower of the U.S. or NATO, is nevertheless not an insignificant force—and,
more critically, it is enmeshed in densely populated civilian centers. To disarm
it without inflicting huge human casualties would require not simply an air
campaign, as was the case in Libya, but rather, by some estimates, two to three
hundred thousand boots on the ground.4 Such force would be crucial to fully
defeat the regime’s security forces, enforce civil peace, and prevent the subsequent
unleashing of retaliatory massacres by opposition groups. Furthermore, to have
lasting impact, such an intervention would have to be prolonged and would
require extensive investment in state-building, at great cost…
What a clusterf*ck…!
God help the Syrians and us…!