Syrian Freedom

Why the red line on #Syria’s chemical weapons matters

06/12/12

An undated photo provided by the Syrian state news agency shows heavy artillery firing at a military exercise. (SANA — Associated Press)

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has stressed that, should Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in his desperation deploy some of his chemical weapons stockpile against his own people, he will cross “a red line for the United States.” She warned, “suffice to say we are certainly planning to take action.”

Some observers have belittled the chemical weapons red line, arguing that it’s silly for the United States to distinguish so assiduously between which military tool Assad happens to use in a campaign that has killed, and often targeted, thousands of civilians. “Blowing your people up with high explosives is allowable,” Dominic Tierney wrote at TheAtlantic.com, “as is shooting them, or torturing them. But woe betide the Syrian regime if it even thinks about using chemical weapons!” Isn’t this hypocritical? Worse, does it risk unintentionally encouraging Assad’s use of conventional weapons?” An article at Foreign Policy notes that drawing the chemical weapons “red line” might “implicitly signal that [the U.S.] would not intervene otherwise, potentially emboldening the Assad regime.”

So why go to all the trouble of drawing a red line around chemical weapons? Why make such a big deal over them when Assad is already killing so many Syrians without them? I can’t tell you what’s happening inside Clinton’s brain, or behind closed doors at the White House or State Department, but there is a long-established international norm against chemical weapons. And that norm has value well beyond this one conflict in this one country.

It would certainly be nice if we lived in a world where conventional weapons were never used or at least never used against civilians, and that’s a goal worth aspiring to. But we live in a world where we still have to manage the conflicts we can’t prevent. As long as war is a facet of human existence, it’s worth upholding the norm that states do not use chemical weapons in those wars.

Chemical weapons were not always so taboo. The norm against their use was first established by the 1925 Geneva Protocol, which came at the enormous cost of World War I. That treaty and the norm it enforced didn’t prevent chemical weapons from being used during World War II, but it did perhaps contribute to their absence from European fronts and to Japan’s decision to use them more sparingly than they likely would have otherwise. World War II was still awful, but it was considerably less awful than if chemical weapons had been used as widely as they were in the previous world war.

Syria’s violence is likewise still terrible even without chemical weapons, but it is less terrible than it would almost certainly be if the state felt it could freely deploy its vast chemical weapons. And, as long as there are conflicts involving states that possess or have access to chemical weapons, those conflicts will be less deadly if the chemical weapons remain locked up.

The U.S. record in enforcing the norm against chemical weapons is not perfect. During the brutal Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, in which the United States sometimes backed Saddam Hussein’s effort against a mutual Iranian enemy, Iraq’s use of chemical weapons was at times overlooked. The history of what exactly the United States knew about Saddam’s chemical attacks as they happened and why it chose to respond (or, more accurately, not respond) as it did is still shrouded in some mystery. But an investigation by Joost Hiltermann of Human Rights Watch concluded that the United States may have played down the reports, or at least avoided calling attention to them. Though Saddam of course fell many years later, he suffered relatively little at the time for his decision to use chemical weapons.

According to a Foreign Affairs review of Hiltermann’s book on the Iraqi gas attacks, “the fallout of these developments has been an enhanced readiness among states to stock and prepare to use weapons of mass destruction [and] an Iran set on never again being without such weapons.” Whether or not that’s an accurate characterization of countries’ motivation in amassing chemical weapons or other weapons of mass destruction, it highlights the potentially wide-reaching and long-term risks of even a single incident of chemical weapons usage. That risk alone underscores the importance of the international norm against chemical weapons, and informs why the United States is so insistent on upholding it.

France urges partial no-fly zone in #Syria

23/08/12

The international community should consider enforcing a no-fly zone over parts of Syria, France’s defence minister said.

Jean-Yves Le Drian said completely closing Syria’s airspace was equivalent to “going to war” and would require a willing international coalition that does not yet exist.

The minister, however, told television station France 24 today that France would participate in such an operation if it followed international legal principles.

For now, though, he suggested that a partial closure – which US secretary of state Hillary Clinton said Washington was considering – should be studied.

France, like other Western countries, is sending supplies to the rebels fighting Syrian president Bashar Assad, but the international community has been reluctant to intervene in the conflict as it did in Libya.

15/08/2012 Washing away the blood in #Syria

With the acrid stench of disinfectant in the air, a woman, expressionless and intent on finishing this daily task as quickly as possible, sluices the last puddle of diluted blood off the hospital steps and onto the sidewalk.

For her this is routine. The pale faces of medical staff who for the past hour had been grimacing with intense concentration and inner frustration were close behind her.

“You cannot show our faces on television - you can’t reveal what we are doing here,” one doctor told me.

Two children under five years of age were dead and another - barely alive - had been sent to Turkey in a battered old car. Seven adults were seriously wounded. The hysteria of wailing relatives and children was now gone. The uncomfortable silence was deafening.

The stark reality echoing now in my mind as I write this a week later is that it was nothing unusual - it just happened to be caught on our camera.

Daily trauma

For months we have known about the medics wanting their work to be kept secret for fear they will be targeted in the same way that a rebel fighter could expect.

It had been one snapshot in the chain of daily trauma, the aftermath of what we all hear referred to as “indiscriminate shelling”. The shells from long-range artillery had landed on a village near al-Atarib this time.

A two-year-old boy was lying lifeless on one of two beds in the tiny, ill-equipped emergency room.

The doctors had moved on to another patient after at least ten minutes of CPR, the hand pumped respirator now at work elsewhere.

The toddler’s mother was being restrained in the other bed as a nurse applied bandages to her face. On the floor were injured men and women being checked over in some sort of triage process. And outside this claustrophobic mayhem on the reception room floor, another young child took his final breath.

I have no doubt that no one crammed into those 60 minutes of excruciating attempts to save lives could be described as a revolutionary. They were all civilians. And nobody wanted to talk about freedom or human rights.

There was just a question barked in my direction: “Where is the help that the outside world keeps promising?” Or words to that effect.

‘Guns, not medicine’

Earlier that day, the same question was put to me by a brigadier-general who defected five months ago from his post as head of intelligence for a region that included Aleppo city.

But the question was aimed in a different direction. He wanted more guns, bigger ones. And much more ammunition.

No mention of humanitarian assistance.

Was he a true revolutionary? Well, he says he is now. But a year ago, he was actively at work trying to crush the uprising.

Where do the civilians stand in all of this?

Certainly the majority of the masses who have fled Aleppo and many of those who remain there would not candidly have numbered themselves as actively supporting the uprising months ago.

Top of wish list

Guns, heavier weaponry, bullets, shells and rockets are at the top of the wish list for those fighting President Bashar al-Assad’s forces. Second comes medical personnel, field hospitals, medicine and equipment.

Some of the latter we know have been getting into Syria, mostly through the smuggling routes on Syria’s borders.

Primarily, those routes run through Turkey. It’s a trickle of support, not a surge, though.

My line of thought fast forwards to Istanbul, and coverage of Hillary Clinton’s Saturday visit that packed in separate talks with the Turkish foreign minister, the prime minister, the president, a selection of refugees, activists, prominent opposition members in exile and the Syrian National Council.

One headline to emerge from those meetings was that Turkey and the US had “agreed to accelerate preparations for the fall of the Syrian president”.

Meaning?

The setting up of a bilateral team to help the opposition while trying to work out which part of a splintered political spread of people could be onside. Or, better still, have some semblance of unity.

Also, providing aid to fleeing refugees and planning contingencies for worst-case scenarios that include a chemical weapons attack.

No-fly zone

Questions put at the obligatory joint news conference raised the idea of a no-fly zone - not for the first time.

It wasn’t ruled out by Clinton, who more than made up for any perceived differences with her NATO ally by repeated gushing thanks for Turkey’s costly operation to provide an undeclared safe haven for more than 55,000 registered refugees and the Free Syrian Army.

Plus an assurance that the US would stand by Turkey in its fight with the PKK, the Kurdish Workers’ Party, to ensure it would get no foothold in Northern Syria.

And there was, of course, the announcement of another $5.5 million in humanitarian aid.

Turkey’s foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, also said a no-fly zone was still on the table, despite the knowledge that Russia and China would be likely to veto any such move.

Clinton said it was going to require more in-depth analysis by the joint working group. It being an election year in the United States, it is unlikely that any unilateral action will be taken. ”Contingency”, “operational planning” and “co-ordination” were the buzz words on Sunday.

Before leaving Istanbul to the surreal feeling of London in Olympic euphoria, my mind went back to the hospital. Political reality is hard to describe to those bereaved or maimed by a war for which initially they had no vested interest.

Daily trauma

I called it a snapshot in a chain of daily trauma. It’s probably more aptly described as a perpetual horror story that, for now, has no end. And it’s playing out every day all over Syria, much of it unseen by media.

The images of the doctors’ pale faces and the children who died take an indelible place in a collage of memory from war zones I have worked in over the past three decades.

Usually, that recurring universal question, where is the help from outside, is eventually answered by meaningful humanitarian aid, with or without military intervention.

For Syria, it’s much more complicated.

And I’m pretty sure that when I return there again soon, I will still stumble to placate or calm the next questioner even more than the last time.

The UN is unable to make a move as long as Russian and Chinese objections continue to exist, and the states that want Assad out of power are engaged in talk of an endgame that doesn’t appear to have been worked out.

And the cleaner in the hospital will still be going through her daily routine of washing away the bloodshed.

Follow Al Jazeera’s Andrew Simmon’s on Twitter @SimmJazeera.

Clinton heads to Turkey for meetings on Syrian rebellion #Syria

Jacquelyn Martin/AP - U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, left, meets with Ghana’s President John Dramani Mahama, at his residence in Accra, Ghana, on Aug. 9, 2012. On Saturday, Clinton will make her way to Istanbul for meetins on Syria’s enduring conflict.

10/08/2012

ACCRA, Ghana — The Obama administration is unlikely to broaden military engagement in Syria at least until after the U.S. presidential election, despite rebel military gains, pleas for help from the rebels and criticism at home that President Obama is sitting on the sidelines, current and former U.S. officials said.

The officials agree that the gradual expansion of U.S. support for the Syrian rebels will stop well short of any armed intervention or aerial protection zone for now.

The United States imposed more economic sanctions on Syria on Friday and will announce an additional $5.5 million in humanitarian aid for Syrian refugees Saturday officials said.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton plans to discuss other options Saturday, during emergency meetings in Istanbul with Turkish government leaders and opponents of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. The one-day stop in Turkey follows a 10-day diplomatic trip to Africa.

“She certainly will be looking to see whether there is anything else we can do that will have a positive impact rather than a detrimental impact on the overall situation in Syria,” a senior State Department official said Friday.

The U.S. calculus of caution could change, as it did last year in Libya, despite the administration’s current policy that adding arms to the volatile and increasingly sectarian civil war in Syria would only make things worse.

Clinton is looking for a “clear picture of the effectiveness of what we are currently providing and how it can be made more effective, and then whether or not there are additional things we can do,” the official said.

But a combination of skepticism in the United States about the utility of any military move, a lack of international consensus and domestic political worries makes the possibility of any near-term military operation appear remote.

The upcoming U.S. presidential election in November casts the national security decision-making on Syria in a political light. Obama administration officials insist they are neither postponing nor hastening any policy change because of the election, but officials agree that unless Assad falls quickly, the United States is highly unlikely to significantly alter its current course before then.

“I just don’t see it coming that fast, with or without the election,” one senior U.S. official said earlier this week. The official, like others, agreed that the election does complicate the already difficult effort to understand the changing situation in Syria and react to it.

There is a debate within the administration about what to do next, with some advisers arguing that some wider help for the rebels would give the United States greater influence with the government that eventually replaces Assad, and would improve the chances for a democratic outcome.

Obama administration officials bristle at criticism from Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney and others that the United States has been a bystander and should arm the rebels. Doing so might provoke a wider war, with little gain for the United States, two senior U.S. officials said this week.

John O. Brennan, the White House’s top counterterrorism official, said Wednesday that President Obama has not ruled out any options for helping the Syrian rebels, although he noted that they already are “awash in weaponry.”

American public opinion has solidly favored winding down the Afghan war and the war in Iraq before it, and the public mostly sides against any new military intervention in Syria. There have been few calls, even from foreign policy hawks, for anything on the scale of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003.

The administration is expanding contact with political opposition figures who might be leaders in Syria after the Assad regime falls, and it has gradually ratcheted up the level of assistance to the splintered military resistance inside Syria. It is now providing satellite equipment and sophisticated radios that allow the rebels to better coordinate their movements and detect regime attack helicopters and other heavy weaponry.

Clinton has never met any of the activists she will see Saturday, two State Department officials said. She will meet no armed fighters or commanders, they said. Previous meetings with opposition groups have revolved around an umbrella group of political exiles.

Armed with some tanks and heavy weapons supplied by Persian Gulf states or captured from the Assad army, the rebels have made significant gains, although not enough to shift the military balance of the 17-month conflict.

At the same time, a peace plan put forward earlier this year by U.N. envoy Kofi Annan has collapsed.

The plan, which included a cease-fire that never took hold, was not taken seriously even by some of its most ardent public backers, because they assumed that Assad would never go along. However, the plan did serve to answer the question of what the United States was doing to help. It also could have given cover to Russia, Syria’s close partner, to negotiate a political deal for Assad to step down.

The United States and several allies are likely to shortly endorse a replacement for Annan, who quit after the plan collapsed, and United Nations monitors are likely to maintain a small, and largely bunkered, presence in the country, officials said.

The changed circumstances are putting pressure on the United States, Turkey and European allies to seize the opportunity and help the rebels, perhaps with more weapons or some form of military protection from the air.

U.S. officials appear no closer to that kind of intervention, however. Clinton has led a gradual embrace of the opposition forces over the past half-year that now includes provision of sophisticated communications and other “nonlethal” military gear. Significant expansion of the U.S. role is unlikely in the short term, and there is little appetite in Turkey for a strong military response, despite worry over the consequences of a prolonged civil war at its doorstep.

Other U.S. officials said a goal of the Istanbul trip is to ensure that Clinton sees a more diverse array of opposition figures than the longtime expatriates she has met. Although U.S. officials did not provide names or significant detail about the possible participants, some are likely to be activists who recently fled Syria or who travel in and out.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the list of participants is not set, and they cautioned that identifying some of some activists publicly would put them in greater danger.

The United States holds no uniform view of Assad’s staying power, with estimates ranging to many months if he retains enough loyalty in his armed forces. Rebel retreat from part of Aleppo under heavy air assault over the past few days shows that the Assad regime is still in control, military and other officials said Friday. Syrian forces have pushed rebels back from a strategic district of the country’s commercial hub, although skirmishes continue in the city.

But Clinton’s stepped-up engagement this week is a recognition that the end is coming, and perhaps much sooner. The pace of defections and the growing military ability of the rebels hasten the need for planning to head off a chaotic collapse of basic government services and to prevent a security vacuum in Syria once Assad goes, officials said.

That is what Clinton meant when she appealed earlier this week for thoughtful consideration of the “day after” the fall. She said she “couldn’t possibly predict” when that day will come.

The rebels also say they do no want direct military intervention in the form of troops on the ground. But they have repeatedly appealed for a no-fly zone similar to the effort that helped Libyan rebels topple Moammar Gaddafi last year and for supplies of heavy weapons to counter Assad’s vastly superior firepower.

The Washington Post reported this week that as the Arab world’s bloodiest revolt continues, anti-American sentiments are hardening among those struggling to overthrow Assad.

Once regarded by the Syrian opposition as a natural friend in its struggle for greater freedoms against a regime long at odds with the West, the United States is now often being viewed with resentment for offering little more than verbal encouragement to the revolutionaries.

“All we get is words,” said Yasser Abu Ali, a spokesman for one of the rebel Free Syrian Army battalions in the town of al-Bab, 30 miles northeast of Aleppo.

The violence already carries signs of sectarian conflict between Syria’s majority Sunni Muslim community and Assad’s minority Alawite sect, an offshoot of Shiite Islam.

“There will be no winner in Syria,” U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said in a statement read by a U.N. representative Thursday. “Now, we face the grim possibility of long-term civil war destroying Syria’s rich tapestry of interwoven communities.”

Iran: “Retired” elite soldiers among 48 hostages held by #Syria rebels

This image made from a video released by the Baraa Brigades purports to show Free Syrian Army soldiers guarding a group of Iranians abducted a day earlier in Damascus, Syria.

(Credit: Youtube)

08/08/2012

(CBS News) - The State Department tells CBS News it has no reason to doubt Syrian rebels’ claims that 48 Iranians they are holding hostage are members of Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guard military unit.

Iran has flatly denied the claim that the hostages are military personnel, insisting they are all civilians who were in Syria to visit the Sayyida Zainab shrine, south of Damascus, when they were abducted. The shrine has been frequented by Shiite Muslim pilgrims in the past, including many from Iran.

On Wednesday, however, Iran’s foreign minister Ali Akbar Salehi was quoted by the Islamic Republic’s government-controlled media as saying, “some retired individuals from the Guards and army” were among those being held.

“After some time in which pilgrims from Iran were not being dispatched to Syria… we took steps to send retired forces from various organizations,” he was quoted as saying by Iran’s state news agency and other state-run media. “Some retired individuals from the Guards and army were dispatched to Syria to make a pilgrimage.”

Salehi continued to reject claims that the hostages were playing an active military role.

A day before admitting the hostages’ links to the elite Iranian military unit, Salehi sent a formal letter to United Nations Secretary-General, to “seek the cooperation and the good offices of Your Excellency for securing the release of these hostages.”

Rebels took the Iranians hostage recently, claiming they are members of the IRGC. In a video published on Sunday, Capt. Abdul Nasser Shumayr of the Free Syrian Army’s al-Bara Brigade said three of the captives had been killed in “fierce shelling” by security forces, and he threatened to execute the rest if the bombardment continued.

He later told al-Jazeera that his brigade had “intelligence information” and “documents” showing that the group belonged to the Revolutionary Guards and had come to Syria to “serve the regime”.

Sending Iranian fighters into the country would change the dynamic of the conflict and provide fertile ground for a proxy war between Iran - a fervent backer of the Assad regime - and the majority-Sunni Muslim nations in the Middle East which have been the rebels’ primary benefactors with weapons shipments and other support.

CBS News correspondent Charlie D’Agata, who spent last week with rebel fighters in Aleppo province, says the notion of Iranian fighters being inside Syria and doing the regime’s bidding is an absolute obsession among the rebels.

“They’re not only convinced of Iranian involvement, they’re actively pursuing Iranians,” says D’Agata.

Syrian President Bashar Assad meets with senior Iranian envoy Saeed Jalili in Damascus, Syria, Aug. 7, 2012.

(Credit: AP/SANA)

The Obama administration believes Iran is “intensifying” its relationship with Syria, and there is tangible evidence for U.S. leaders to point to.

Assad met a senior Iranian envoy in Damascus on Wednesday and the two men spoke openly of their countries’ “strategic cooperation relationship” and “attempts by some Western countries and their allies to strike at the axis of resistance by targeting Syria and supporting terrorism there.”

The Iranian envoy, Saeed Jalili, told Assad that, “Iran will absolutely not allow the axis of resistance, of which it considers Syria to be a main pillar, to be broken,” according to Syria’s state-run news agency.

Speaking during a state visit to South Africa on Tuesday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that the U.S. is concerned that the Syrian rebellion is being exploited by those who are “sending in proxies.”

Clinton sees need to plan for post-Assad #Syria

07/08/12

By MATTHEW LEE

Associated Press

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Tuesday that the defections of Syria’s prime minister and other senior officials increase the urgency of planning for the ouster of Syrian President Bashar Assad.

PRETORIA, South Africa —

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Tuesday that the defections of Syria’s prime minister and other senior officials increase the urgency of planning for the ouster of Syrian President Bashar Assad.

In South Africa’s capital, Pretoria, Clinton said the U.S. and other nations need to make sure that Syrian state institutions remain intact once Assad loses his grip on power.

“The intensity of the fighting in Aleppo, the defections, really point out how imperative it is that we come together and work toward a good transition plan,” Clinton said.

On a visit to start the handover of control of an AIDS prevention and treatment program, she also said that global efforts to stop the virus “have saved hundreds of thousands of lives.” South Africa has the world’s highest rate of HIV infection.

On Syria, Clinton said the opposition is becoming increasingly effective and better armed. But the fighting has created “desperate humanitarian needs of those suffering inside Syria and those who have fled. These are growing by the day,” she said.

Clinton spoke a day after the defection of Prime Minister Riad Hijab, the latest in a string of high-level departures from the Assad regime.

The defections reinforce her view that Assad’s regime will not survive. “I do think we can begin talking about planning for what happens next: the day after the regime does fall. I am not going to put a timeline on it, I can’t possibly predict it, but I know it’s going to happen as do most observers around the world,” Clinton said.

She said she would raise these issues when she travels to Turkey for talks on Syria on Saturday.

Clinton played down U.S. concerns over South Africa’s reluctance to support Western-backed initiatives at the United Nations, where South Africa is wrapping up a two-year elected term on the Security Council. South Africa abstained on the last Security Council resolution on Syria, which would have called for sanctions for non-compliance with Kofi Annan’s peace plan. The resolution failed on a double veto by Russia and China.

“As crisis and opportunities arise there are tough issues that we have to tackle together,” Clinton said. “We do not always see eye-to-eye on these issues. … Sometimes we will disagree, as friends do.”

Clinton and Foreign Minister Maite Nkoana-Mashabane pledged to intensify cooperation in dealing with crises in African hotspots, such as in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Somalia.

In South Africa, 5.7 million people - 17.8 percent of the population - have tested positive for HIV. PEPFAR, the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, has spent $3.2 billion on anti-retroviral drugs and HIV prevention programs in South Africa since 2004. The program was initiated by President George W. Bush and has been continued by President Barack Obama’s administration.

On Wednesday in Cape Town, Clinton will preside at a ceremony at which the U.S. will begin shifting administrative control of the AIDS initiative and treatment implementation to the South Africans. The handover will take five years.

“We believe as partners on the continent we can do more about stability and the way we are going to foster economic growth and security,” Nkoana-Mashabane said.

Later, at a U.S.-South Africa business summit, Clinton hailed the growing trade ties between the two countries. She noted that two-way trade had shot up 21 percent to almost $22 billion from 2010 to 2011.

Nearly 98 percent of South Africa’s exports to the U.S. enter the country duty-free under the African Growth and Opportunity Act, which is set to expire in 2015. Nkoana-Mashabane urged the U.S. Congress to extend the act and Clinton said the administration would work with lawmakers on it.

Clinton is in South Africa at the midpoint of an 11-day tour that has already taken her to Senegal, Uganda, South Sudan, Kenya and Malawi. After the stop in Cape Town, she will travel on to Nigeria, Ghana and Benin before moving on to Turkey.

Defections show “crumbling” regime in #Syria, US says

06/08/12

The United States was trying to confirm the latest defections from President Bashar al-Assad’s government, after the Syrian prime minister announced he was joining the rebels, a senior official said Monday.

“We are seeking to confirm these press reports. If true, these defections would be further evidence that the Assad regime is crumbling,” the official said in South Africa, where Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was traveling.

“Its days are numbered, and we call on other senior members of the regime and the military to break with the bloody past and help chart a new path for Syria—one that is peaceful, democratic, inclusive and just.”

Syrian Prime Minister Riad Hijab announced he was joining the rebels on Monday after slipping across the border into Jordan during the night in the highest-ranking defection of the nearly 17-month uprising.

Hijab was one of the leading Sunni Muslims in Assad’s minority Alawite-dominated regime.

He accused his former master of carrying out a “genocide” against his own people and said four decades of Assad family rule were collapsing.

-AFP

Exclusive - Secret Turkish nerve centre leads aid to #Syria rebels

27/07/12

DOHA/DUBAI (Reuters) - Turkey has set up a secret base with allies Saudi Arabia and Qatar to direct vital military and communications aid to Syria’s rebels from a city near the border, Gulf sources have told Reuters.

News of the clandestine Middle East-run “nerve centre” working to topple Syrian President Bashar al-Assad underlines the extent to which Western powers - who played a key role in unseating Muammar Gaddafi in Libya - have avoided military involvement so far in Syria.

“It’s the Turks who are militarily controlling it. Turkey is the main co-ordinator/facilitator. Think of a triangle, with Turkey at the top and Saudi Arabia and Qatar at the bottom,” said a Doha-based source.

“The Americans are very hands-off on this. U.S. intel(ligence) are working through middlemen. Middlemen are controlling access to weapons and routes.”

The centre in Adana, a city in southern Turkey about 100 km (60 miles) from the Syrian border, was set up after Saudi Deputy Foreign Minister Prince Abdulaziz bin Abdullah al-Saud visited Turkey and requested it, a source in the Gulf said. The Turks liked the idea of having the base in Adana so that they could supervise its operations, he added.

A Saudi foreign ministry official was not immediately available to comment on the operation.

Adana is home to Incirlik, a large Turkish/U.S. air force base which Washington has used in the past for reconnaissance and military logistics operations. It was not clear from the sources whether the anti-Syrian “nerve centre” was located inside Incirlik base or in the city of Adana.

Qatar, the tiny gas-rich Gulf state which played a leading part in supplying weapons to Libyan rebels, has a key role in directing operations at the Adana base, the sources said. Qatari military intelligence and state security officials are involved.

“Three governments are supplying weapons: Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia,” said a Doha-based source.

Ankara has officially denied supplying weapons.

“All weaponry is Russian. The obvious reason is that these guys (the Syrian rebels) are trained to use Russian weapons, also because the Americans don’t want their hands on it. All weapons are from the black market. The other way they get weapons is to steal them from the Syrian army. They raid weapons stores.”

The source added: “The Turks have been desperate to improve their weak surveillance, and have been begging Washington for drones and surveillance.” The pleas appear to have failed. “So they have hired some private guys come do the job.”

President Barack Obama has so far preferred to use diplomatic means to try to oust Assad, although Secretary of State Hillary Clinton signalled this week that Washington plans to step up help to the rebels.

Reuters has established that Obama’s aides have drafted a resolution which would authorise greater covert assistance to the rebels but still stop short of arming them.

The White House’s wariness is shared by other Western powers. It reflects concerns about what might follow Assad in Syria and about the substantial presence of anti-Western Islamists and jihadi fighters among the rebels.

The presence of the secret Middle East-run “nerve centre” may explain how the Syrian rebels, a rag-tag assortment of ill-armed and poorly organised groups, have pulled off major strikes such as the devastating bomb attack on July 18 which killed at least four key Assad aides including the defence minister.

A Turkish diplomat in the region insisted however that his country played no part in the Damascus bombing.

“That’s out of the question,” he said. “The Syrian minister of information blamed Turkey and other countries for the killing. Turkey doesn’t do such things. We are not a terrorist country. Turkey condemns such attacks.”

However, two former senior U.S. security officials said that Turkey has been playing an increasing role in sheltering and training Syrian rebels who have crossed into its territory.

One of the former officials, who is also an adviser to a government in the region, told Reuters that 20 former Syrian generals are now based in Turkey, from where they are helping shape the rebel forces. Israel believes up to 20,000 Syrian troops may now have defected to the opposition.

Former officials said there is reason to believe the Turks stepped up their support for anti-Assad forces after Syria shot down a Turkish plane which had made several passes over border areas.

Sources in Qatar said the Gulf state is providing training and supplies to the Syrian rebels.

“The Qataris mobilized their special forces team two weeks ago. Their remit is to train and help logistically, not to fight,” said a Doha-based source with ties to the FSA.

Qatar’s military intelligence directorate, Foreign Ministry and State Security Bureau are involved, said the source.

WESTERN CAUTION

The United States, Israel, France and Britain - traditionally key players in the Middle East - have avoided getting involved so far, largely because they see little chance of a “good outcome” in Syria.

“Israel is not really in the business of trying to ‘shape’ the outcome of the revolt,”, a diplomat in the region said. “The consensus is that you’re damned if you do and you’re damned if you don’t. The risk of identifying with any side is too great”.

A former U.S. official who advises a government in the region and other current and former U.S. and European security officials say that there has been little to zero direct assistance or training from the U.S. or its European allies.

The former official also said that few sophisticated weapons such as shoulder-fired bazookas for destroying tanks or surface-to-air missiles have reached the anti-Assad forces.

While some Gulf officials and conservative American politicians have privately suggested that a supply of surface-to-air missiles would help anti-Assad forces bring the conflict to a close, officials familiar with U.S. policy say they are anxious to keep such weapons out of the hands of Syrian rebels. They fear such weapons could make their way to pro-jihad militants who could use them against Western aircraft.

AFTER ASSAD

The CIA and the Israelis’ main concern so far has been that elements of al-Qaeda may attempt to infiltrate the rebels and acquire some of Syria’s stockpile of chemical weapons.

Sima Shine, a former chief Mossad analyst who now serves as an adviser to the Israeli government, told Reuters: “It’s a nightmare for the international community, and chiefly the Americans - weapons of mass-destruction falling into the hands of terrorists. In parallel to its foreign contacts, Israel is taking this especially seriously. After all, we are here, and the Americans are over there.”

She envisaged two circumstances under which Hezbollah, the Lebanese Islamist group, could obtain some of the chemical weapons stockpile.

“Assad goes and anarchy ensues, during which Hezbollah gets its hands on the weapons. There is a significant Hezbollah presence in Syria and they are well-ensconced in the military and other national agencies. So they are close enough to make a grab for it.

“Another possibility is that Assad, knowing that he is on his way out, will authorised a handover to Hezbollah, as a message to the world about the price of encouraging his ouster.”

However, British and U.S. officials believe there is little or no sign of Assad being toppled imminently.

The situation, one senior European official said, is still likely to veer back and forth, like a tug-of-war between pro- and anti-Assad forces.

There is no indication, the official added, that Assad himself has any intention of doing anything but fighting on until the bitter end.

(Additional reporting by Mark Hosenball in London and Dan Williams in Jerusalem; writing by Richard Woods; editing by Michael Stott and Ralph Boulton)

China’s veto on #Syria: what interests are at play?

25/07/12

China’s motivations regarding how to deal with Syria differ from those of Russia, and constitute a new, more assertive foreign policy. However, engaging the government and its opposition on equal terms might come back to haunt China in the future.

Though widely interpreted as the anti-western duo in the UN Security Council, China and Russia in fact have different calculations for casting their respective vetoes on the UN resolution for Syria. With little stakes involved in Syria, Chinese vetoes are a performative move, announcing to the world that the country will take a more proactive approach in future international conflicts.

On paper, Russia and China do appear to act as a bloc. The two countries contest the validity of the use of the UN Charter’s Chapter VII, quoted in the British-drafted plan. The west insists the resolution will only authorize further non-military economic sanctions. Russia instead claims that this plan will open the path to “external military involvement in Syrian domestic affairs.” China’s UN ambassador Li Baodong agrees, adding that the “unbalanced” content of the drafted resolution will only spread violence to other parts of the region.

There are a number of plausible explanations regarding Russian interests in Syria. Russia continues to supply the Syrian government with arms, and has reportedly dispatched warships to Tartus. The Syrian port city is the location of Russia’s only military facility outside of ex-Soviet space, though it has been pointed out that the base is actually of minimal military value. Some commentators turn to the symbolic nature of Russian presence, said to be crucial for maintaining its influence in the Middle East peace process. Another might say that protecting Syria is about reassuring authoritarian presidents in the post-Soviet space.

The reasoning on the Chinese side is not as obvious. There are certainly tight economic ties; a few years ago China became Syria’s largest supplier of imported products. China invested in Syria’s oil sector a few years ago, and as late as March China reportedly continued to buy oil to support the Syrian regime’s survival amid UN sanctions. However, given the scale of the Syrian economy and oil production, such economic interests are not significant enough for China to protect Assad’s government.

Given that China imposes strict internet censorship, a review of discourse among Chinese netizens and political commentary on official state media might nevertheless reveal the true nature of Chinese foreign policy towards Syria.

A widely circulated realist viewpoint suggests that China’s support for Syria is an act to protect its strategic interests in the Middle East. The logic goes as follows: since Syria is a close ally of Iran, by keeping the Syrian regime intact, or more importantly, preventing a pro-western replacement, China is in fact ensuring that Iran retains its regional support and will not fall prey to another western-led invasion. One forum even erroneously cited Syria to be a major oil-producing country in the region.

The underlying message in such assumptions is hinting at a Cold War-style geopolitical game, the players being the West vs China & Russia. This is plausible, but given Syria’s actual military power, its presence and alliance would not have a significant impact even if the west does decide to strike Iran. Discourse of this sort could otherwise be interpreted as a way to manage the nationalist expectations of Chinese citizens.

The assumption that China is maintaining its Middle East sphere of influence is consistent with commentaries on Syria publishedon the state organ People’s Daily, in which a recurring rhetoric suggests that ‘the West’ has been acting on a hidden agenda. According to such rhetoric, ‘the West’ has been trying to push for a power transition of Assad’s government, furthering its geopolitical interests, or maintaining US hegemony in the region.

Beyond the usual anti-western rhetoric, China’s official stance onSyria throughout the crisis could reveal more about China’s intentions. As early as in June 2011, Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Hong Lei remarked that China supports “relevant parties in Syria properly resolving internal differences through dialogue and negotiation.” This is what China calls the “political solution line” it has been following all along; pressure must be applied to both parties of the conflict in a balanced manner to push for a peaceful solution, or what a Chinese scholar calls “soft landing” for Syria. Another repeated point of emphasis is that the UN Security Council should act according to the principles and spirit of the UN Charter, i.e. respecting the sovereignty of all nations, and non-interference in the internal politics of sovereign states.

This official Chinese position is reflected in China’s recent participation in the Action Group for Syria which convened early July in Geneva, in which all participants signed an agreement to push for a Syrian-led political transition “that would meet the legitimate aspirations of the Syrian people.” Note that China has so far refused to participate in Friends of Syria conferences. After the third Friends of Syria conference on July 6, a commentary published in People’s Daily condemned Hillary Clinton’s criticism of China and Russia during the conference, as its recommendations worked against the agreement reached at the Action Group for Syria meeting.

China’s recent use of vetoes is also somewhat telling. After abstention on Libya’s no-fly zone, China used three vetoes on the Syria crisis alone. This is quite revealing when put in historical context; since the People’s Republic of China entry into the UN in 1971, the country has only used the veto eight times.

All this suggests changes in China’s foreign policy strategy. Repeated uses of veto are a clear sign that it will henceforth become more active in international affairs. China is weary of seeing yet another western-led military intervention in the region, under whatever pretext. Selective participation in the Action Group for Syria means that China will only join committees in which it has agenda-setting power. The emphasis on UN principles not only fit in with China’s official doctrine of non-interference, but also indicates that China will carry out this foreign policy strategy within the UN framework, an act that appears legitimate in the international arena.

Simon Shen, an International Relations scholar from Hong Kong, believes that if China takes on the responsibility to mediate in a country like Syria, in which it has little stake, in theory it will have the responsibility to mediate in future more important international conflicts. Shen further points out that although the Action Group for Syria was coated in the UN framework, it is in fact a compromise among the powers: the US excluded Iran’s participation, and in retaliation Russia barred Saudi Arabia’s participation. This means that as long as the 5 permanent members of the Security Council are in agreement for a certain arrangement, China will accept its inclusion within the UN framework. [1] This in effect places the P5 in a more important position, transforming the UN into a wrestling ground for big powers and rendering the other member-states less relevant.

China’s use of a particular conflict to make its mark in the world is not unprecedented. Parallels can be drawn with the Gulf Crisis. After the Tiananmen Massacre in 1989, Chinese diplomatic relations with the west cooled. The Gulf Crisis in 1990 provided just the perfect opportunity for China to mend its damaged international image. According to scholar Yitzhak Shichor, China took on a double-edged policy; on one hand it supported UN Resolution 660 that approved use of all means to force Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait, and on the other hand China actively supported efforts to work out a peaceful solution. The then Foreign Minister Qian Qichen travelled back and forth between Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Iraq with the stated purpose of exploring the possibility of a peaceful solution with each country’s respective leader. [2] According to Shichor, the result was the immediate improvement of Sino-western relations, and the realization by the international community that settlement of major international problems is impossible without Chinese participation.

Mark Qian’s words during the Gulf Crisis: “I have not brought any specific proposal, nor am I going to be a mediator.” Times have clearly changed.

There is a catch, however, in China’s newfound strategy on Syria. Active mediation is, in a way, in conflict with China’s stance of non-interference in the internal politics of other states. More importantly, by engaging a government and its opposition on equal terms, it in effect violates what China insists as the UN principle for respecting the sovereignty of that particular government. China itself also faces an internal opposition movement; if China’s stance on Syria is taken as precedent, and should opposition to the CCP garner enough momentum, in theory the international community could apply the same rules to China. This is a potentially tricky situation.

Russia to suspend new arms to #Syria - agencies

* Could signal Moscow move away from Syria’s Assad

* Russia will not deliver fighter planes

* White House says move positive if confirmed (Adds White House comment)

By Thomas Grove

MOSCOW, July 9 (Reuters) - Russia will not deliver fighter planes or other new weapons to Syria while the situation there remains unresolved, the deputy director of a body that supervises Moscow’s arms trade was quoted as saying on Monday.

“While the situation in Syria is unstable, there will be no new deliveries of arms there,” Vyacheslav Dzirkaln told journalists at the Farnborough Airshow in Britain, Russia’s Interfax news agency reported.

The refusal to send more arms to Syria could signal the strongest move yet by Moscow to distance itself from Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, whom it has defended in the U.N. Security Council from harsher sanctions.

It could also scuttle up to $4 billion of outstanding contracts, including fighter jets and air-defence systems that were expected to be delivered this year.

A spokesman for Dzirkaln’s Federal Service for Military Technical Co-operation would not confirm the deputy director’s comments when contacted by telephone. Reuters was awaiting for a response to requested written questions.

In Washington, White House spokeswoman Erin Pelton said it would be a positive development if confirmed.

“We refer you to Russian authorities for confirmation,” she said. “If it is truly Russia’s intention to halt arms sales to Syria, then we would laud this step and commend Russia for this measure, which would send a strong signal to the Assad regime.”

“We have long called on all nations to cease supplying this regime with weapons, given its continued use against the Syrian people.”

Although legal, Russia’s arms trade with Syria has fueled concerns that Moscow is supplying Assad with weapons being used against protesters taking part in an armed uprising against him.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has said the arms Moscow delivers cannot be used in civil conflicts and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has said the supplies are defensive weapons sold in contracts signed long ago.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has termed Russian statements that the weapons are unrelated to the violence in Syria “patently untrue” and Washington has called the delivery of a shipment of heavy Russian weapons “reprehensible”.

FIGHTER PLANES

Dzirkaln was quoted as saying that Russia, one of Syria’s main weapons suppliers, would not be delivering a shipment of 36 Yak-130 fighter planes, a contract for which was reportedly signed at the end of last year.

“In the current situation, talking about deliveries of airplanes to Syria is premature,” he said.

Rosoboronexport, Russia’s monopoly arms exporter, would not comment on Dzirkaln’s remarks, which were also reported by the Russian state news agency RIA.

“We understand the position of (the agency), but we are a separate organisation and will not comment,” said spokesman Vyacheslav Davidenko.

Syria’s arms-trade ties with Moscow date back to the Soviet era. It has previously signed contracts worth billions of dollars and hosts a Mediterranean supply-and-repair facility that is Russia’s only naval base outside the former Soviet Union.

A Russian analyst said Moscow had already distanced itself from Assad.

“Russia has stopped signing new contracts with Syria and is delaying the shipments of already signed contracts,” said Ruslan Aliyev, an expert on the Russian-Syria arms trade at the Moscow-based defence think-tank, CAST.

“It’s basically a political decision based on Moscow’s view of Syria.”

Russia faced Western criticism last month after Clinton said Russian attack helicopters were on the way to Syria. Moscow said they were part of an old contract and that it only provided weaponry that could be used against external aggression.

“Previously, we were fulfilling old contracts, including repairs of the machines,” Dzirkaln said. “Until the situation stabilises, we will not carry out any new arms deliveries.” (Additional reporting By Nastassia Astrasheuskaya in Moscow and Matt Spetalnick in Washington; Writing by Thomas Grove; Editing by Pravin Char and David Brunnstrom)

Annan to put new ‘approach’ to #Syria rebels

DAMASCUS (AFP) - International envoy Kofi Annan has announced a new political “approach” in a bid to end Syria’s 16-month-old conflict, as the West voices concern over the violence spreading across the Lebanese border.

“We discussed the need to end the violence and ways and means of doing so. We agreed an approach which I will share with the armed opposition,” UN-Arab League envoy Annan said after meeting Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad in Damascus on Monday.

Syrian foreign ministry spokesman Jihad Makdissi called the meeting “constructive and good”.

Stepping up efforts to halt the carnage which monitors say has cost more than 17,000 lives, Annan then travelled on to Iran, Syria’s closest regional ally, in his quest to broker a solution.

The diplomatic efforts were carried out against the increasingly familiar backdrop of bloodshed in Syria, with the United States and the European Union expressing concern at the outbreak of cross-border clashes with Lebanon.

Shells fired from Syria landed overnight in northern Lebanon after an exchange of fire along the border, a senior Lebanese security official told AFP early Tuesday.

The Syrian shells were fired into Lebanon following a cross-border gun battle, the source added.

There was no immediate report of casualties, but the latest incident came just two days after border clashes in which two girls were killed and several other people wounded in Lebanon.

US Ambassador to Lebanon Maura Connelly on Monday called on Damascus to “respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Lebanon”.

In Brussels EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton’s office released a statement saying she “strongly condemns the recent shelling of the Lebanese border area by Syrian artillery, causing several deaths and injuries”.

Monday’s interventions also came as at least 58 people were killed nationwide, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said, a day after nearly 100 people died.

Pro-government Al-Watan newspaper said Annan’s discussions focused on the results of the Geneva meeting at the end of June.

They discussed means “to implement the results of the meeting… on forming a transitional government in Syria that groups government and opposition representatives without mention of Assad’s departure”, it said.

World powers in Geneva agreed a plan for a transition which did not make an explicit call for Assad to quit, although the West and the opposition made clear it saw no role for him in a unity government.

On the ground in Syria, the army pounded besieged rebel-held areas of Homs, monitors said Monday, as Qusayr also came under a morning bombardment.

The opposition Syrian National Council (SNC) slammed Annan’s decision to meet Assad, saying thousands of people have been killed despite an April ceasefire.

Annan, whose military observers in Syria have been grounded because of escalating violence, admitted in remarks published by French newspaper Le Monde ahead of his Damascus trip that his peace blueprint has so far foundered.

He also expressed frustration that while Moscow and Iran are mentioned by some as stumbling blocks to peace, “little is said about other countries which send arms, money, and have a presence on the ground”.

Moscow arms export officials said Monday that Russia will not supply new weapons to its Arab ally Syria while fighting there continues, while stressing that old contracts would be fulfilled.

Earlier, Russian President Vladimir Putin said Syria needed dialogue between the regime and opposition, rather than foreign intervention, to ensure a lasting peace.

Putin spoke after prominent Syrian opposition leader and intellectual Michel Kilo met Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Moscow.

Later on Monday Annan few to Tehran for talks with Saeed Jalili, Iran’s top security official, and Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi.

Annan has said Tehran has a key role to play in efforts to end the bloodshed.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has accused the United States and its allies of opposing Assad’s regime with the goal of dominating the Middle East and propping up Israel.

On Sunday US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned time was running out to save Syria from a “catastrophic assault”.

The Observatory, a Britain-based monitoring group, estimates that 5,898 people have been killed since the Annan-brokered April truce.

Clinton Says #Syria Must End Violence To Avoid ‘Catastrophic Assault’

A member of the Free Syrian Army walks past a destroyed government tank in the town of Atareb in northern Aleppo province.

July 08, 2012

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says the Syrian government has a better chance to avoid what she called a “catastrophic assault” the sooner the violence ends and the political transition begins.

Clinton said the regime of Bashar al-Assad must acknowledge that its days are numbered, and that there was no doubt Syria’s opposition forces were growing more effective.

She said last month was the deadliest for the Syrian people in the 16-month revolt against Assad.

Clinton was speaking in Tokyo on the sidelines of an international donors conference for Afghanistan.

Special UN envoy Kofi Annan, meanwhile, acknowledged in an interview published on July 7 that the international community’s efforts to find a political solution to the escalating violence in Syria have failed.

Based on reporting by Reuters and AP

US hopes #Syria talks will issue call for tough UN sanctions

PARIS: The United States will lead calls at talks in Paris for a tough new UN sanctions regime to be imposed on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his inner circle, US officials said Thursday.

Speaking as US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton flew to Paris for Friday’s Friends of Syria meeting, one official said it was time “to put this all together under a Security Council resolution that increases the pressure on Assad, including having real consequences” such as economic sanctions.

“We, and we believe most of the countries represented in Paris, think that has to include Chapter 7 economic sanctions on Assad,” the official said aboard Clinton’s plane and asking to remain anonymous, referring to a clause within the UN charter.

“Many of the countries in Paris already have those sanctions but globalising them will be very important. That is the argument that we will continue to make to Russia and China.”

The aim would be to keep up momentum, building on talks in Geneva last weekend and the Cairo and Paris talks, with the UN Security Council set to take up the sanctions issue as soon as next week.

“There’s already a lot of work being done in New York in terms of thinking through what this resolution might look like,” said another US official.

“The idea is to… go right away to New York there’s no wait-time. How long it will take for this all to be agreed, it’s hard to anticipate. But the work is already underway and the focus will be in New York next week as soon as we finish in Paris basically.”

Friday’s Friends of Syria meeting will bring together more than 80 nations, as well as non-governmental organizations and representatives of the Syrian opposition.

The US officials hailed a blueprint drawn up earlier this week by the Syrian opposition in talks held under the auspices of the Arab League in Cairo, which set out a clear plan for transition to a post-Assad era in Syria.

It also drew up the basis for a future constitution and governing system for the Arab nation, which has been ruled for decades by the Assad family and the Baath party.

According to the document, as soon as Assad steps down a new caretaker government would be installed to start the transtition process.

It would aim to bring together a “wide national conference” in Damascus to include all political powers and across all spectrums of society.

This conference would then set up a temporary legislative body to work on a new constitution and hold parliamentary elections within a year. Following that election, the new government would have to put the constitution to a referendum within six months.

“It’s a very explicit, almost a bill of rights in terms of each group. They all get to have their rights protected and their place in Syrian society without any split in the country, in the society, in the territory,” said the second US official.

The document also makes it clear that those people with “blood on their hands” would have no role in the next governments, although the US official said it would be up to the Syrian people to make that determination.

“It is not something that we would define or we would dictate,” the official said.

- AFP/fa

Foreign ministers to discuss #Syria in Paris; Russia boycotts ‘one-sided’ meet (Good riddance!)

Thursday, 19 April 2012

French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe said that the U.N. observer mission in Syria would require between 300 and 400 people to oversee the country properly. (Reuters)

By Al Arabiya with Agencies

Western and Arab foreign ministers were to meet in Paris Thursday for talks that France says will send a strong message to Syria’s regime, but Russia said the meeting would damage chances for peace.

The meeting was due just hours after French President Nicolas Sarkozy accused Syrian President Bashar al-Assad of seeking to “wipe Homs from the map,” referring to a flashpoint rebel city being shelled by Syrian forces.

French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe was to host U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and 12 foreign ministers for talks France said would pressure the Syrian regime to abide by the U.N.-Arab League envoy Kofi Annan’s peace plan.

Juppe, speaking shortly before the meeting, said the group would discuss contingency plans for a potential unraveling of a U.N.-backed peace plan.

“If it is not possible (to implement the plan) then we will look at what new measures need to be taken,” Juppe told a media briefing ahead of the talks with delegations from 14 countries including the United States, Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

He said that the U.N. observer mission in Syria would require between 300 and 400 people to oversee the country properly.

The foreign ministers will send “a message of firmness and support for Kofi Annan,” he added.

Russia called the Friends of Syria meeting “destructive” and could undermine Annan’s peace efforts.

Russia was invited but stayed away because the talks were “one-sided” without representation from the Syrian government, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich said.

The goal of the meeting appeared to be not to seek dialogue among Syrians but “on the contrary, to deepen differences between the opposition and Damascus by stimulating the international isolation of the latter,” he said.

Russia said the meeting differed little from two previous Friends of Syria conferences that Moscow also skipped because they included calls for Assad’s ouster.

China meanwhile said Thursday it was considering sending observers to monitor a Syrian ceasefire that came into force last week but is under threat as violence escalates.

China and Russia both drew international criticism earlier this year for vetoing two U.N. Security Council resolutions on the Syria crisis which were critical of Assad.

US #Syria policy a tacit nod to Assad’s firm grip

By ANNE GEARAN, AP National Security Writer – 37 minutes ago

BRUSSELS (AP) — Despite oft-repeated U.S. demands that Syrian President Bashar Assad step aside, the Obama administration’s policy now reflects a consensus that Assad has a firm hold on power and that nothing short of an outside military strike will dislodge him quickly.

With rebel forces poorly armed and disorganized, efforts to pay them by Arab Gulf states failing, and sectarian divisions looming in Syria, the U.S. and its allies seem prepared to leave Assad where he is. Even if he could be ousted, the near future in Syria would involve civil war among ethnic groups now under Assad’s boot, or a slow and bloody war with rebels or proxy fighters armed from the outside.

The U.S. has edged toward supplying the rebels with communications gear and other nonlethal aid but has ruled out either a military assault or a supply of heavy weaponry for rebel forces.

“We are at a crucial turning point,” U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Wednesday.

Either a United Nations-brokered cease-fire takes hold “or we see Assad squandering his last chance before additional measures have to be considered,” Clinton said.

But even as she suggests further action, as she has many times before, Clinton is not expected to announce a shift in the U.S. stance during a diplomatic huddle on Syria in Paris on Thursday.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said late Wednesday he believes there is an opportunity for progress in Syria and recommended the Security Council approve a 300-strong U.N. observer mission.

In a letter obtained by The Associated Press, Ban told the council he will consider developments on the ground, including consolidation of the cease-fire, before deciding on when to deploy the expanded mission, which is larger than the 250 observers initially envisioned. The Security Council was scheduled to discuss Ban’s letter and recommendations at a closed meeting Thursday morning.

The United States backs the cease-fire between Assad’s forces and rebels, but the deal also represents recognition that Assad remains in control of the armed forces and holds the power to suspend attacks on civilians and rebels.

The week-old cease-fire was supposed to allow greater humanitarian and other relief to enter the country.

Syria has violated key provisions. Tanks, troops and widely feared plainclothes security agents continue to patrol the streets to deter anti-government protests, while the regime resumed its assault on rebellious Homs, Syria’s third-largest city, over the weekend after only a brief lull.

The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said clashes broke out Thursday in Deir el-Zour, near the border with Iraq, killing one civilian and wounding three others. Syrian troops also began shelling rebel-held neighborhoods in Homs early Thursday, according to the Observatory.

U.S. officials regularly say Assad is no longer a legitimate leader, but they hold no direct leverage to make him leave, or even make him listen to international condemnation.

“Assad must step down,” U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said this week. “I mean, we continue to take that position. At the same time, I think, we believe that we have to continue to work with the international community to keep putting pressure on Assad.”

Even relatively harsh new sanctions on Syria are a tacit admission that Assad isn’t going anywhere anytime soon. And the rebels are no closer to ridding the country of him despite 13 months of fighting and 9,000 mostly civilian deaths.

Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem said Wednesday that his country was observing the cease-fire plan laid out by special envoy Kofi Annan.

In a meeting in Beijing with his Chinese counterpart, Yang Jiechi, Moallem said the Syrian government would “honor and implement” its commitment to withdraw the army from cities and would cooperate with United Nations observers arriving in the country.

The U.N. insists the fragile truce is holding even though regime forces have been hammering Homs with artillery for days.

The Obama administration recently signed off on $12 million in enhanced communications, medical and other assistance to the opposition, but it is unclear what goods are making their way into Syria and by what means.

International sanctions on Assad’s regime have depleted its foreign currency reserves by half — and Damascus is actively trying to evade them, French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe said Tuesday as he opened a Paris meeting of some 57 countries, including Arab League states, to reinforce sanctions and denounce Assad. Clinton will attend a smaller gathering of “core” nations addressing the Syrian problem, also in Paris, diplomats said.

At a larger gathering two weeks ago, Saudi Arabia and other wealthy Arab states pledged donations from a multimillion-dollar fund designed to prop up Syrian rebels and entice defections from Assad’s army. Washington seized on the plan as a path forward even though the U.S. disagrees with Arab states that want to give weapons to the badly outgunned rebels.

Syrian opposition members and international officials say no money has been sent yet, in part because the Arab governments stepped into a logistical thicket when they began trying to figure out how to route the money to the right people.

There’s no way to monitor where the money goes as the country veers toward civil war. Because the rebels hold no territory and struggle even to maintain communications inside and outside Syria, there is no clear way to deliver the money.

The U.S. and other nations have tried a variety of ways to get Assad to ease a crackdown on antigovernment demonstrators inspired by last year’s Arab revolutions. The U.S. has long since given up hope that Assad would negotiate with protesters and peacefully give up power. But from the start last year, the U.S. rejected any call for a direct military response like the one mounted a year ago in Libya.

The reasons are simple and, like the current U.S. stance, they reflect the reality of Assad’s entrenched family dynasty.

Syria’s military is vastly more powerful and better-equipped than Libya’s was and is arrayed throughout cities and towns. Any air assault by the U.S. or other outsiders would probably kill many civilians.

The assault would have to be broad and sustained to knock out Syria’s heavy artillery and other defenses. That indicates a longer and far more expensive operation than the one in Libya, which was undertaken with NATO help.

Despite widespread disgust and anger at Assad, there is no international mandate for forcibly removing him. Syria was never the outcast that Libya under Moammar Gadhafi became, and it maintained trading and diplomatic relationships around the globe.

European countries are unlikely to get militarily involved without the United States, and Turkey has backed off from talk of creating buffer zones along the Syrian border. Any foreign military action could provoke anger from Russia and China, and open hostility from Iran, whose personnel have actively supported Assad’s government.

Russia and China have twice shielded Syria from U.N. sanctions over the crackdown.

Associated Press writers Slobodan Lekic in Brussels, Jamey Keaten in Paris and Bradley Klapper in Washington contributed to this report.