Syrian Freedom

#Syria Iran focus of Russian president’s visit to Israel

June 25, 2012 09:15 PM (Last updated: June 25, 2012 09:16 PM)By Aron Heller Associated Press

JERUSALEM: Israel urged the visiting Russian president on Monday to step up pressure on Iran to curb its suspect nuclear program but there was no sign of any concessions from Vladimir Putin.

With Russia an influential voice in the international debate over Iran, the outcome of the 24-hour visit could have deep implications for whether Israel decides to strike Tehran’s nuclear facilities or give the international community more time to find a diplomatic solution to the standoff.

Israel and Russia enjoy deep economic and cultural relations bolstered by the more than 1 million immigrants from the former Soviet Union who now live in the Jewish state. But they have deeply differing approaches to Iran’s nuclear program and the uprising in Tehran’s close ally Syria. Russia has blocked drastic action against the two countries, while Israel has repeatedly hinted it may act militarily to stop Iran’s nuclear program.

In a brief statement after meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Putin said their talks covered the situation in Iran and the bloody uprising in Syria, but added that he saw negotiations as the only solution for such matters.

Netanyahu countered with far more detail.

“We agree that nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran pose a grave danger, first for Israel but also for the region and the whole world,” he said. “Two things need to be done now: we need to bolster the sanctions and bolster the demands.”

Netanyahu insisted that all uranium enrichment in Iran must cease and its underground nuclear facility near Qom be dismantled. He added that “the killing and horrible suffering of the Syrian people” must be stopped.

Israel sees Iran as its most dangerous enemy because it is convinced the country’s nuclear program is meant to build bombs and not for peaceful purposes such as energy production, as Iran insists. The fears are compounded by Tehran’s frequent calls for Israel’s destruction, support for anti-Israel militants and arsenal of ballistic missiles.

Israel has said repeatedly that it would not tolerate a nuclear Iran, and while saying it prefers a diplomatic solution has also hinted of using a military strike as a last resort. Israel itself is widely believed to possess nuclear weapons.

Iran is under four sets of Security Council sanctions because of its nuclear program. Israel has welcomed these but warned they are not enough. Efforts aimed at tougher U.N. sanctions have been opposed in the Security Council by Russia and China, both permanent veto-wielding members that have extensive financial interests in Iran.

Russia, for instance, has built a $1 billion nuclear reactor in Bushehr. But Moscow, bowing to U.S. and Israeli demands, has also scrapped a deal to sell Iran long-range missiles that could provide a powerful deterrent against a potential air attack.

Russia and China have joined world powers in a new set of low-level negotiations with Iran in July, after the last round yielded no breakthroughs.

Another Israeli concern is Syria. Russia has continued its arms sales to Damascus throughout the violent popular uprising against President Bashar Assad. Israel is afraid Russian weapons in Syria will fall into the hands of allied Hezbollah militants in neighboring Lebanon, something Israel says happened during its 2006 war with the Lebanese group.

Putin began his official visit at a ceremony to inaugurate a Soviet Red Army memorial in the coastal city of Netanya, paying tribute to fallen soldiers of World War II that included tens of thousands of Jews.

“The memory of the fallen is sacred in my eyes. I am moved that you feel the same thing in Israel,” he said, facing the sculpture of a massive pair of wings on a wind-swept hilltop overlooking the Mediterranean Sea.

President Shimon Peres linked the past to the challenges of the present.

“I am confident that Russia, which defeated fascism, will not allow similar threats today. Not the Iranian threat. And not the bloodshed in Syria,” he said at the ceremony.

The trip was Putin’s second in Israel, having last visited seven years ago. On Tuesday, he heads to the West Bank and Jordan.

The Russian leader came with an entourage of hundreds of officials and businesspeople, who will be exploring possible military, technology and energy deals between the two countries.

Putin said his visit stressed not only the friendly relations between the countries but also a “solid basis on which to build dialogue and partnership.” He said he spoke with Netanyahu about cooperation in science, technology, agriculture, medicine and culture.

The leaders also discussed the victory of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Mohammed Morsi in Egypt’s presidential election, as well as stalled Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking.

“Israel appreciates the democratic process in Egypt and respects its outcome. We look forward to working with the new administration based upon the peace agreement between us,” said Netanyahu. “I believe that peace is an essential interest of both countries and I believe that peace is the basic element of stability on our region.”

Israel and Egypt signed a peace treaty in 1979. Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood has said it would maintain the treaty but would demand changes to it.

Kofi Annan’s plan is destined to fail #Syria

By David Schenker – Special to CNN

President Bashar al-Assad has agreed to U.N. envoy and former Secretary-General Kofi Annan’s six-point plan to end the bloodshed in Syria. Al-Assad was wise to do so. The U.N. initiative, which endorses al-Assad’s oversight of a “political process to address the legitimate aspirations” of the Syrian people - is a boon to the dictator and a setback for the opposition.

Al-Assad had little to lose by signing on to the plan. The concessions he made in the deal- - the ceasefire, the ensuring of humanitarian assistance, a release of political prisoners, allowing entry to journalists, and permitting demonstrations - can all be reversed relatively quickly.

Meanwhile, the benefits for al-Assad are significant. Notwithstanding having killed nearly 10,000 Syrian citizens, some U.N. member states will likely view the president’s acceptance of the plan as a positive step providing evidence of the regime’s new willingness to compromise with the opposition. More importantly, Annan’s plan says nothing about al-Assad having to leave, much less face trial for crimes against humanity. To wit, when queried on March 27 about whether al-Assad would step down, Annan said “it’s up to the Syrian people.”

Putting aside the absurd supposition that the Syrian “people” ever had or ever will be empowered to determine al-Assad’s future through peaceful means, the plan not only perpetuates, but legitimates al-Assad’s continued rule. For the time being, at least, the debate has changed from how al-Assad can be forced from power to what reforms the Syrian strongman can be convinced to make.

At the same time, the plan hurts the opposition. The predictably divergent responses to the news of al-Assad’s acceptance from the Syrian National Council, the opposition’s government in exile, highlight rifts within the group. Should the negotiations actually occur, questions of who will speak for the opposition will only exacerbate extant divisions. Worse, Annan’s plan will slow the momentum building in Washington calling for providing critical funding and lethal assistance to the Free Syrian Army, the military opposition to the regime.

For al-Assad, the Annan plan also provides a useful respite both from international condemnation and for his troops. In particular, a ceasefire would give the regime’s 4^th Division - some 12,000 Alawite troops loyal to the minoritarian Alawite regime - a much-needed break. For the past year, the division has been deployed throughout Syria, tasked with suppressing largely Sunni Muslim rebel forces.

Accepting this U.N. roadmap is vintage al-Assad regime strategy. As usual, he is playing for time. During the Bush Administration, for example, the regime was under a lot of pressure, internationally isolated for its assumed role in the murder of the former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and for helping to move insurgents into Iraq to kill American soldiers.

At moments of maximum international pressure on the regime, however, al-Assad would float the possibility of negotiations with Israel. The mere prospect of Damascus joining the peace camp alleviated the pressure and ended Syria’s pariah status. Al-Assad succeeded in waiting out a hostile Bush Administration, which was replaced by an Obama Administration that campaigned on a pledge to diplomatically engage the regime.

If the Annan plan had even a remote chance of succeeding, it might be worth risking the potential downsides. Alas, there is absolutely no prospect of success. Al-Assad had more than ten years to implement political reforms. Judging from al-Assad’s recently intercepted emails where he referred to promised reforms as “rubbish laws of parties, elections, and media,” the revolt has not spurred an epiphany.

While al-Assad may indeed engage in dialogue with opposition figures, he will not consent to real democratic elections that will lead to majoritarian [i.e. Sunni Muslim] rule in Syria. He may likewise agree to vest parliament with more authority and provide the historically powerless legislature with the appearance of relevance. But this is al-Assad’s vision of reform - it does not reflect the aspirations of the Syrian people who, for the past year have put their lives on the line to end the corrupt, tyrannical, and increasingly brutal regime.

What al-Assad will offer during the “political process” will be acceptable to neither the political nor the military opposition. In fact, it’s difficult to see anything short of al-al-Assad’s departure from power being accepted.

So Kofi Annan’s initiative to end the crisis in Syria is destined for failure. To be sure, al-Assad will blame the plan’s failure on the opposition “terrorists” and continue with the atrocities. Meanwhile, the opposition will regroup, and the Free Syria Army, armed by Saudi Arabia and Qatar, will continue the fight to protect demonstrators and end the regime.

At the end of the day, however, the biggest cost of this ill-advised effort may be time. The longer the conflict drags on, the more Islamist the opposition is becoming. Regrettably, counterproductive U.N. efforts like the Annan plan will do little to reverse this trend.

Opposition group calls for strike as Syrian violence grows #Syria

By the CNN Wire Staff

February 5, 2012 — Updated 1352 GMT (2152 HKT)

(CNN) — After world leaders decried the U.N. Security Council’s failure to pass a resolution on Syria, reports of violence surged once again in the besieged country.

At least 22 people were killed in Syria on Sunday, according to the Local Coordination Committees of Syria, a network of opposition activists.

The group said 16 of the deaths happened in Homs, where they say hundreds have been killed in recent days in violence that opposition groups blame on the government. Three others were killed in the Damascus countryside.

The group reported that another three were killed in the northwestern city of Idlib, where clashes broke out Sunday between government forces and defectors from the armed forces. At least nine Syrian army troops were killed in those clashes and 21 others were injured, according to Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, another opposition activist group.

The group also said a 14-year-old child was killed when security forces used gunfire to disperse a demonstration in suburban Damascus.

The Local Coordination Committees announced plans for a two-day civil strike starting Sunday as a way to mount more pressure on President Bashar al-Assad’s government.

It’s unclear what will happen on the world stage after Russia and China vetoed a U.N. Security Council draft resolution that would have demanded al-Assad stop the killing and answer calls aimed at finding a Syrian-led solution to the 11-month crisis.

Ambassadors from the other permanent members of the council — the United States, France and the United Kingdom — said they were furious at Russia and China for failing to halt the violence that has consumed Syria.

“Those that have blocked potentially the last effort to resolve this peacefully … will have any future blood spill on their hands,” U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice told CNN. “The people of Syria have yet again been abandoned by this Council and by the international community.”

Some Syrians have cried out for international action to stop attacks on civilians, particularly after opposition groups said more than 320 civilians were killed and hundreds wounded in the city of Homs in the past two days.

The opposition Syrian National Council blamed government forces for the attack in Homs, calling it one of the most “horrific massacres” since the start of the Syrian uprising. Residential buildings and homes were “randomly and heavily bombed,” the group said.

CNN cannot independently confirm opposition or government reports from Syria because the government has restricted journalists’ access to the country.

Some residents accused the international community of sitting idle as bodies mount in the streets, and they predicted worsening violence in the wake of the vote.

For months, residents and opposition activists have said the Syrian regime is slaughtering civilians, including protesters seeking al-Assad’s ouster and true democratic elections.

But Syria’s U.N. ambassador, Bashar Jaafari, said his country has been “targeted by some powers seeking to punish it.”

Jaafari called the crisis “manufactured” and said there is a media campaign to make the Syrian regime look bad.

The Syrian government has consistently blamed “armed terrorist groups” for the violence.

Following Saturday’s vote, French President Nicolas Sarkozy said diplomatic efforts are continuing. France, its European and Arab partners are in talks to create a “Group of Friends for the Syrian People,” he said.

Rice, the U.S. ambassador, said the United States was “disgusted” at the veto by Russia and China.

Referring to Russia, she said, “This intransigence is even more shameful when you consider that one of these members continues to deliver weapons to Assad.”

The Russian foreign minister has defended Russia’s arm sales to Syria, saying they did not affect the regional balance of power.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov is scheduled to visit Damascus on Tuesday to meet with al-Assad, according to his ministry.

British Ambassador to the U.N. Mark Lyall Grant said the United Kingdom was “appalled” at the veto. It effectively means Russia and China “support tyranny rather than the legitimate aspirations of the Syrian people,” he said.

British Foreign Secretary William Hague said the resolution supported Arab League efforts to resolve the crisis in Syria.

“It did not impose any sanctions, nor did it authorize military action,” Hague said. “There was nothing in the draft to warrant opposition.”

Speaking after the vote, ambassadors from both Russia and China said they do support an end to the violence but felt the resolution did not address the crisis properly.

Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin said the text “did not adequately reflect the real state of affairs and sent an unbalanced signal” to the various sides in Syria.

Chinese Ambassador Li Baodong called on all parties in Syria to stop the violence and restore order as soon as possible. But he said the text would have served only to “complicate the issue” and would “prejudge the result of dialogue.”

China and Russia vetoed an earlier Security Council resolution in October that would have called for an immediate halt to the crackdown, which United Nations officials have said has resulted in an estimated 6,000 deaths since protests began nearly a year ago. The LCC estimates that at least 7,339 people have been killed.

“Since these two members last vetoed a resolution on Syria, an estimated 3,000 more civilians have been killed,” Rice said Saturday.

The resolution voted on Saturday had dropped demands from an Arab League plan for Syria to form a unity government and for al-Assad to delegate power to his deputy.

U.N. diplomats said the changes reflected a big concession to Russia, which had been reluctant to sign on to any plan that could be seen as a mandate for regime change in Damascus.

#Syria’s ‘reformer’

By Charles Krauthammer,

Many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he’s a reformer.

— Hillary Clinton on Bashar al-Assad, March 27

Few things said by this administration in its two years can match this one for moral bankruptcy and strategic incomprehensibility.

First, it’s demonstrably false. It was hoped that President Assad would be a reformer when he inherited his father’s dictatorship a decade ago. Being a London-educated eye doctor, he received the full Yuri Andropov treatment — the assumption that having been exposed to Western ways, he’d been Westernized. Wrong. Assad has run the same iron-fisted Alawite police state as did his father.

Bashar made promises of reform during the short-lived Arab Spring of 2005. The promises were broken. During the current brutally suppressed protests, his spokeswoman made renewed promises of reform. Then Wednesday, appearing before parliament, Assad was shockingly defiant. He offered no concessions. None.

Second, Clinton’s statement is morally obtuse. Here are people demonstrating against a dictatorship that repeatedly uses live fire on its own people, a regime that in 1982 killed 20,000 in Hama and then paved the dead over. Here are insanely courageous people demanding reform — and the U.S. secretary of state tells the world that the thug ordering the shooting of innocents already is a reformer, thus effectively endorsing the Baath party line — “We are all reformers,” Assad told parliament — and undermining the demonstrators’ cause.

Third, it’s strategically incomprehensible. Sometimes you cover for a repressive ally because you need it for U.S. national security. Hence our muted words about Bahrain. Hence our slow response on Egypt. But there are rare times when strategic interest and moral imperative coincide completely. Syria is one such — a monstrous police state whose regime consistently works to thwart U.S. interests in the region.

During the worst days of the Iraq war, this regime funneled terrorists into Iraq to fight U.S. troops and Iraqi allies. It is dripping with Lebanese blood as well, being behind the murder of independent journalists and democrats, including former prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri. This year, it helped topple the pro-Western government of Hariri’s son, Saad, and put Lebanon under the thumb of the virulently anti-Western Hezbollah. Syria is a partner in nuclear proliferation with North Korea. It is Iran’s agent and closest Arab ally, granting it an outlet on the Mediterranean. Those two Iranian warships that went through the Suez Canal in February docked at the Syrian port of Latakia, a long-sought Iranian penetration of the Mediterranean.

Yet here was the secretary of state covering for the Syrian dictator against his own opposition. And it doesn’t help that Clinton tried to walk it back two days later by saying she was simply quoting others. Rubbish. Of the myriad opinions of Assad, she chose to cite precisely one: reformer. That’s an endorsement, no matter how much she later pretends otherwise.

And it’s not just the words; it’s the policy behind it. This delicacy toward Assad is dismayingly reminiscent of President Obama’s response to the 2009 Iranian uprising during which he was scandalously reluctant to support the demonstrators, while repeatedly reaffirming the legitimacy of the brutal theocracy suppressing them.

Why? Because Obama wanted to remain “engaged” with the mullahs — so that he could talk them out of their nuclear weapons. We know how that went.

The same conceit animates his Syria policy — keep good relations with the regime so that Obama can sweet-talk it out of its alliance with Iran and sponsorship of Hezbollah.

Another abject failure. Syria has contemptuously rejected Obama’s blandishments — obsequious visits from Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry and the return of the first U.S. ambassador to Damascus since the killing of Hariri. Assad’s response? An even tighter and more ostentatious alliance with Hezbollah and Iran.

Our ambassador in Damascus should demand to meet the demonstrators and visit the wounded. If refused, he should be recalled to Washington. And rather than “deplore the crackdown,” as did Clinton in her walk-back, we should be denouncing it in forceful language and every available forum, including the U.N. Security Council.

No one is asking for a Libya-style rescue. Just simple truth-telling. If Kerry wants to make a fool of himself by continuing to insist that Assad is an agent of change, well, it’s a free country. But Clinton speaks for the nation.