Inspired by the principles of Malcolm X / Malik El-Hajj Shabazz. A 'Third Worldist' perspective focusing on the increasing pace of south-south co-operation which is challenging and defeating US hegemony, and the struggles of those oppressed by neo-colonialism and white supremacy (racism) who fight for their social, political and cultural freedom 'by any means necessary'
If Egypt gets away with banning our democracy NGOs and threatening to jail their staff, if officials who lead such actions are later given warm official receptions in Washington, those NGOs may as well close up show: every undemocratic regime will start treating them the same way. We need to stand up for them strongly–and now.
The campaign against the International Republican Institute, National Democratic Institute and Freedom House, along with a half-dozen Egyptian and European groups, is being led by Minister of International Cooperation Faiza Aboul Naga, a civilian holdover from the Mubarak regime. Ms. Aboul Naga, an ambitious demagogue, is pursuing a well-worn path in Egyptian politics — whipping up nationalist sentiment against the United States as a way of attacking liberal opponents at home. The regime’s calculation has always been that it can get away with such outrages because U.S. policymakers will conclude they can’t afford a rupture in relations with Egypt. But if such a break is to be avoided, the generals must be disabused of the notion that U.S. military aid is inviolate.
“They should know that this action on their part jeopardizes a normal relationship between us,” Levin said in a brief interview on his way out of the Democratic caucus lunch. “They know that, and that includes the impact it could have on aid.”
McCain, who happens to be the chairman of the board of IRI, said in his own after-lunch interview that U.S. military aid to Egypt is “certainly a topic that [the Egyptians] have put on the table.”
“It’s hard to believe. IRI and NDI worked throughout Eastern Europe after the fall of the Soviet Union and we helped them with democracy. They’re like mechanics. They come in and tell you how to organize voters, how party registration works, and that kind of stuff. They’re not advocates of anybody,” McCain said.
Egyptians and Americans should be asking why such passionate advocates for Israel are so concerned about “promoting democracy” in Egypt.
Miraflores Palace (Heads of States and Alba’s government XI summit)
Hugo Chavez: Thanks a lot Minister of Foreign Relations and friend Hector Timerman. Here we have also José de San Martin, they had the camera on him, the great liberator, one of the greatest of our history; José de San Martin…
The Falklands issue hurts us, it hurts us a lot, and as you say Hector, and we all know it, it is not only an Argentine issue, is an issue that pertains to all of us, and…the empire, the old empire, old and crumbling British empire must understand that this is a sentiment of all of our America, not only a sentiment of the governments, it is also a people of the America’s sentiment: South America, Caribbean; Latin America.
I will never forget, on those days of war, I was Captain, and I was here in the Military Academy as staff official when the war started and everyone truly wanted to go there, I think it was Cuba the only country that offered troops (Raul Castro shakes his head saying no)…
no? I read it somewhere or someone told me…
support, political support, I read it somewhere…
A voice in the background: they went to farther away places…
Hugo Chavez: yes, they went to farther away places…
but Argentina at that time, was alone, or almost alone, from a military point of view, well said by the Foreign Minister Timerman, Argentina rejects the military path, but as I told Cristina, I am gonna say it here, I told her on the phone, as the military path, that we don’t want, does not depends only on Argentina’s will…
how much we all know for a fact about Gaddaffi…how many times he called for a dialogue, but NATO did not want dialogue, they just wanted to kill him and overthrow him, there is Bashar al-Assad, even if those are different situations, but I reflect on this…well… calling for a dialogue, making efforts, Russians called for dialogue, even offering Moscow, as a venue for dialogue between government and opposition, the opposition doesn’t want to…
the Arab League, the same way they asked Libya to be bombarded, an Arab country, they are now requesting that Syria be attacked, another Arab country. This is not going to happen in Latin America, they can forget about it, it won’t happen in Latin America, among us may be differences in approach, here and there, not in ALBA, but beyond ALBA, there are ideology differences with some governments, but Latin America has advanced so much in the process of unity consciousness, and in this case I am only going to speak on behalf of Venezuela, but if the Britain Empire decides to attack Argentina, Argentina will not be alone in this occasion.
(Applause)
Chavez: won’t be alone, won’t be alone…Venezuela is not a military power but we do have some weapons, and the will to fight any imperialist aggression against any of our brother countries. Excuse me... President Correa
Correa: President…dear friends, I think that there are essential things without which the rest of all the things that we could talk become meaningless, that we talk of sovereignty, dignity, Latin American integration, and our America… that we still have these colonial legacies… that to this date they pretend that an Argentinean territory be a possession of a world power which metropolis is situated 14,000 kilometers and more from that territory, is simply unacceptable and it shows us the worldwide existence of double standard…on the other hand for me daring to prosecute a newspaper that said that I am a criminal of humanity and ordered to shoot a hospital full of civilians without sending any notice beforehand…and because of that prosecution, we have been taken to the Intern American human rights commission, the Office of freedom of Speech, the European union, all the newspapers of the United States that don’t even know where Ecuador is, to the UN, etc…
and then there are 40 countries that disobey UN resolutions and nothing happens, as we keep passively accepting those things, believe me that the rest is meaningless. Now we have to inaugurate an one standard approach in international relations and I think that one of the biggest challenges of ALBA, UNASUR, of Latin America, the hope of the XXI century, the hope of a new way of life, of a new concept of development, of a new concept of international relations, well I am very happy because of the strong and firm declarations that ALBA has made regarding the Falkland issues, but I think we have to be firmer, more decisive…why? for example, imagine… you have given examples on what happened to Libya, Syria, any insinuation is good to bomb, kill, etc… if we disobey half of an UN resolution, wouldn’t we have blockade, sanctions, bombing, invasions?
So why don’t we mention sanctions from Latin America to Britain? Because of this atrocity, abuse, because of this disoriented colonialism in the XXI century. We must take more powerful actions. I think it was very symbolic to block boats waving the Falkland flag, as Hector says, from docking at our ports, and sailing our seas, but we can do things a lot more powerful, why? I mean what do we have…why this asymmetry? If any country in Latin America disobeys an UN resolution, how many sanctions wouldn’t we have received? 40 resolutions have been disobeyed. This is the moment for Latin America to decide sanctions against that disoriented power that pretends to be imperialist and colonialist in the XXI century, I think that we have to take more powerful actions, dear President, otherwise all these is only going to stay in ink.
(applause)
Correa: I insist there are issues as are the Falkland, which are essentials, that if we don’t solve them, all the rest is meaningless, we are talking about sovereign, dignity, honest, decent presence in the international scenario and then we have an empire in front of the Argentine costs 14,000 kilometer from its metropolis. For me and for Ecuador (excuse me that I spoke in first person when I am representing a sovereign, decent country and its people who love freedom) we believe that this is simply intolerable, as Hector was saying, this is not an Argentinean problem, this is a problem of all Latin America, I think we have to step forward, start talking of sanctions from Latin America to Britain because of the problem of the Falkland, and I insist this shows very well, the international double standards, what would happen if Ecuador disobey half of an UN resolution? What would happen if it were Venezuela or Bolivia, which disobey? Any of our countries… enough of this double standards, of this asymmetry.
By the time of the Falkland war, I was 18 years old, as was Raul more or less, and I remember that The Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (commonly known as the Rio Treaty, the Rio Pact, or by the Spanish-language acronym TIAR from Tratado Interamericano de Asistencia Recíproca –from Wikipedia) mandated that in the face of any external (extra regional) aggression, we had to show solidarity to the country of the region, was pulverized, UUSS supported Britain, they did not support Argentina, Argentina was alone, that action should’ve sentenced to death the Inter American system, but it survived because it was functional to the interest of the hegemonic countries, but again this showed that when it is convenient, international treaties are not respected, regional solidarity: nothing at all.
For example one concrete measure, concrete steps to send the message to the world that we are not going to tolerate this type of actions anymore is to withdraw ourselves as a unit, from The Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance, and continue our work to have an Inter American system essentially of Latin American and The Caribbean without hegemonic countries that have made the current Inter American system, represented by the OAS, a simple instrument of foreign policy, I think we have to make more concrete decisions, take more powerful actions, sanctions from Latin America to Britain and for example withdraw as an unit from the TIAR.
(applause)
Correa: But that’s not the only critical point, how is it possible that in the XXI century, the arrogance of certain countries allows them to order blockade to a sovereign country like Cuba, I think that in all our meetings, that issue should be present, it should be the cornerstone, as it is the Falkland, otherwise, what are we talking about? We act for nothing, we must insist in the lifting of the criminal blockade to Cuba and insist and reject this arrogance of trying to exclude Cuba from the different international forum, specifically, The Summits of the Americas will take place, next April, I think, in Cartagena de India, Colombia, Cuba has not been invited, if Cuba is not invited, none of us should go, how is it possible that an American country can be excluded?
(applause)
Correa: on whose behalf? Who appoints certain countries to be arbiters of good and evil, the judges of our America? So I don’t understand how we could attend a Summit of the Americas where Cuba has not been invited, so now I propose that, President, if Cuba does not go, is not invited to this Summit of the Americas none of the ALBA’s country, at least ALBA’s countries, we have to take this initiative to UNASUR and hopefully we can take it to Latin America, none of the Latin American and Caribbean country, hopefully they will support us on this, attend this summit, enough of this atrocities.
Israel has not and is not interfering in the political crisis in Syria, Vice Prime Minister and Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Ya’alon said on Sunday, adding that he did not think radical Islam would take over the country in case Syrian President Bashar Assad is ousted.
Ya’alon’s comments came as Russia and China vetoed on Saturday a Western-Arab UN Security Council resolution backing an Arab League call for Assad to step aside.
The other 13 council members voted in favor of the resolution, which would have said that the council "fully supports" the Arab League plan.
Speaking to Army Radio on Sunday, Ya’alon referred to claims that Israel was sustaining Assad’s rule in wake of political turmoil in Syria, saying: “That’s factually untrue because Israel never took a stand saying it was interested in the survival of Assad’s regime.”
The vice prime minister also spoke of the aftermath of Assad’s possible ouster, saying that “there could be different developments in such a situation, some of which could be positive as far as Israel is concerned, like a fissure in the Tehran-Damascus-Beirut-Hamas axis of evil.”
“There’s a difference between Syria and Egypt,” Ya’alon said, referring to the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, adding that the “Brotherhood’s power in Syria is much less significant.”
“I don’t see a Muslim Brotherhood regime [rising in Syria], I see a relatively moderate Sunni regime based on an intellectual middle class, not the Muslim Brotherhood,” Ya’alon added.
When asked when he felt Assad would be forced to step down, the vice PM said that it was “hard to estimate, but we’re saying again and again what’s clear to anyone following the situation in Syria. Assad is losing his legitimacy and it’s a matter of both time and of lives lost.”
In the Army Radio interview, Ya’alon was also asked whether Israel was contacting the Syrian opposition, to which the top Israeli official said: “Whether there’s contact or not, you don’t expect me to discuss these things in the media.”
Ya’alon also referred to comments he made during the Herzliya Conference last week, according to which a military strike could hit all of Iran’s nuclear facilities and that "any facility protected by humans can be infiltrated by humans.”
His comments came following a report citing U.S. officials as saying that the Pentagon lacked conventional arms powerful enough to pierce some of Iran’s more well protected plants.
“We saw the development in the defensive abilities of tanks along the years and counter development of anti-tank missiles,” Ya’alon told Army Radio on Sunday, adding that last week’s statement was “an axiom. There’s no doubt that whatever humans develop, another human can crack.”
According to the vice PM, the U.S. officials cited in the recent report also “spoke of being busy developing,” adding that “eventually humans will reach the capability of penetrating the bunkers in this case too.”
Also speaking on Sunday, Iranian Defense Minister Ahmad Vahidi told Hezbollah’s al-Manar TV that a military intervention in Syria could “ignite the entire region.”
Vahidi expressed what he said was dismay at the decision to pass the Syria crisis to discussion at the UN Security Council, especially as the Arab League’s observer mission was under way.
According to the Iranian defense minister, Russia and China vetoed a resolution against Syria’s Assad since they were aware of a western plot to divide the Middle East.
Vahidi also spoke of recent sanctions imposed against Iran and its nuclear program, saying that Tehran was evaluating all the possibilities, and was preparing itself to all of them, including to an armed conflict.
On 19 December 2011 the Syrian Arab Republic and the Arab League signed a protocol establishing an observer mission that was supposed to lead efforts to resolve the conflict in Syria.
Almost immediately once-staunch advocates of this Arab League "intervention" in Syria began to undermine the mission’s efforts.
Before inking the final deal, an Arab League official had warned me that certain member states – Qatar, most prominently – were setting up conditions that would preclude the participation of the Syrian government. But intense shuttle diplomacy at the eleventh hour produced a breakthrough: the mission was approved by the two parties. The disappointed spoilers launched a public relations blitz to cast doubt on the mission’s participants, the Arab League’s capabilities, and the investigation’s discoveries.
For the last month, there have been incessant allegations about the Sudanese head of mission Lieutenant General Mohamed Ahmed Mustafa al-Dabi, now suddenly accused of war crimes. Rumors abounded about mission observers quitting their posts because of the “horrific” nature of the Syrian government’s onslaught against its civilians. International NGOs and a slew of Western politicians even offered to “train” the mission observers – implicitly suggesting that Arabs lack observation and negotiation capabilities, or worse perhaps, that the observers need to be taught to view the Syrian conflict through external lenses.
It was hard to doubt these rumors entirely. The Arab League has, after all, refused to make the final monitors’ report available to the general media. But the report has suddenly popped up as an annex to the UN resolution on Syria currently being hotly debated at the Security Council. Most puzzling though, is that few Western or Arab journalists congregated at the United Nations this week are drawing attention to this critical document that provides insight into the very events contested at Security Council sessions.
Mission Report: The Good, Bad and Ugly
The full monitor’s report of the Arab League, as revealed here, refers in several instances to efforts aimed at undermining the mission and its activities:
“Since it began its work, the mission has been the target of a vicious media campaign…that increased in intensity after the observers’ deployment. Some media outlets have published unfounded statements, which they attributed to the head of the mission. They have also grossly exaggerated events," it said.
"Such contrived reports have helped to increase tensions among the Syrian people and undermined the observers’ work. Some media organizations were exploited in order to defame the mission and its head and cause the mission to fail.”
The effort to “defame” the mission – ostensibly by opponents of the Syrian government – is a strange one. The report – while short – is professionally written, detailed, and highlights the difficulties inherent in covering a hard-fought conflict. It also criticizes the Syrian regime’s actions and shortcomings in sticking to the protocol and protecting civilians:
“On being assigned to their zones and starting work, the observers witnessed acts of violence perpetrated by government forces and an exchange of gunfire with armed elements in Homs and Hama. As a result of the mission’s insistence on a complete end to violence and the withdrawal of army vehicles and equipment, this problem has receded.”
On the critical issue of political detainees, the report states:
“On 19 January 2012, the Syrian government stated that 3569 detainees had been released from military and civil prosecution services. The mission verified that 1669 of those detained had thus far been released. It continues to follow up the issue with the government and the opposition, emphasizing to the government side that the detainees should be released in the presence of observers so that the event can be documented.” The report also verifies that an additional 3,843 detainees were released before Syrian President Bashar Assad issued a general amnesty decree on January 15. The government claims the number is 4,035.
But then the report veers sharply away from conventional narratives about the nature of the Syrian conflict by observing: “The mission determined that there is an armed entity that is not mentioned in the protocol.”
Though the report attributes this development “to the excessive use of force by Syrian government forces in response to protests,” it also points out that “in some zones, this armed entity reacted by attacking Syrian security forces and citizens, causing the government to respond with further violence.”
The report then provides several examples of this: “In Homs and Dera‘a, the mission observed armed groups committing acts of violence against government forces, resulting in death and injury among their ranks. In certain situations, government forces responded to attacks against their personnel with force. The observers noted that some of the armed groups were using flares and armor-piercing projectiles.”
“In Homs, Idlib and Hama, the observer mission witnessed acts of violence being committed against government forces and civilians that resulted in several deaths and injuries. Examples of those acts include the bombing of a civilian bus, killing eight persons and injuring others, including women and children, and the bombing of a train carrying diesel oil. In another incident in Homs, a police bus was blown up, killing two police officers. A fuel pipeline and some small bridges were also bombed.”
Media Coverage and Access In Syria
Notable too is the mission report’s contention that media reports on incidents of violence in Syria are often exaggerated and unverified:
“The mission noted that many parties falsely reported that explosions or violence had occurred in several locations. When the observers went to those locations, they found that those reports were unfounded. The mission also noted that, according to its teams in the field, the media exaggerated the nature of the incidents and the number of persons killed in incidents and protests in certain towns.”
It also addresses criticism that the Syrian government restricts media access both into Syria and into the country’s hot spots. Complaints varied from media being allowed into the country for an insufficient four days to the regime demanding cumbersome “destination” itineraries, “operating permits” and “movement restrictions.”
The report provides a list naming the various individual journalists and media organizations entering Syria during the mission’s mandate, and concludes: “The Government had accredited 147 Arab and foreign media organizations. Some 112 of those organizations entered Syrian territory, joining the 90 other accredited organizations operating in Syria through their full-time correspondents.”
I should note that I was in Syria doing research for some articles during the mission’s investigations and that I am not on the list. While my own visa was arranged through a connected non-Syrian friend, I know of other writers who entered the country without incident. I spent my time there freely interviewing many opposition groups and individuals and was at no time accompanied by government minders – or monitored, to the best of my knowledge.
Less fortunate was Gilles Jacqiuer, the France 2 Channel cameraman who was killed during a visit to a pro-regime neighborhood in Homs. The French government has loudly sought to implicate the Syrian government in this killing, but the mission says that “mission reports from Homs indicate that the French journalist was killed by opposition mortar shells.”
The report also refers to controversial statements made by several monitors who abandoned their positions and publicly criticized the mission afterward. Probably the most memorable of these is Algerian Anwar Malek who famously claimed on Al Jazeera: "What I saw was a humanitarian disaster...The regime is not just committing one war crime, but a series of crimes against its people. The snipers are everywhere, shooting at civilians. People are being kidnapped. Prisoners are being tortured and none were released."
The Arab League released a terse statement in response, saying Malek’s allegation “does not relate to the truth in any way," and claiming instead, that "since he was assigned to the Homs team, Malek did not leave the hotel for six days and did not go out with the rest of the team into the field giving the excuse that he was sick."
The report further expounds: “Some observers reneged on their duties and broke the oath they had taken. They made contact with officials from their countries and gave them exaggerated accounts of events. Those officials consequently developed a bleak and unfounded picture of the situation.”
Mission Success or Failure?
The report concludes with some pessimism: because of early logistical issues and other difficulties, the mission only actually operated for 23 days out of its month-long mandate. There is a need for better transportation, communication equipment – and most importantly – the necessary “media and political support” to complete its mandate.
On a positive note, the mission stresses that the Syrian regime “strived to help it succeed in its task and remove any barriers that might stand in its way. The government also facilitated meetings with all parties. No restrictions were placed on the movement of the mission and its ability to interview Syrian citizens, both those who opposed the government and those loyal to it.”
Most critically, however, the report recommends a change in the protocol’s mandate, namely, the “commitment of all sides to cease all acts of violence.” This, for the first time, introduces the notion that the Syrian government may not be entirely responsible for the civilian casualty numbers flaunted in media reports. And it is an important point – regular soldiers reportedly account for approximately 2,000 deaths in the country since March 2011.
But the observers warn: “Recently, there have been incidents that could widen the gap and increase bitterness between the parties. These incidents can have grave consequences and lead to the loss of life and property. Such incidents include the bombing of buildings, trains carrying fuel, vehicles carrying diesel oil and explosions targeting the police, members of the media and fuel pipelines. Some of those attacks have been carried out by the Free Syrian Army and some by other armed opposition groups.”
The "citizens" of Syria with whom they met – some of whom suffer from "extreme tension, oppression and injustice" – “believe the crisis should be resolved peacefully through Arab mediation alone, without international intervention. Doing so would allow them to live in peace and complete the reform process and bring about the change they desire.”
This is a narrative that is entirely missing in the mainstream media’s coverage of the Syrian crisis. The complicity of armed groups in escalating the violence initially started by the Syrian government, the compliance of the regime in advancing the Arab League Protocol’s demands, and the rejection by ordinary citizens of internationalizing and militarizing the conflict.
Read the mission report and reach your own conclusions. But it is clear that possibly the worst thing that can be done at this critical juncture is to suspend the Arab League mission’s investigations and interventions. If the mission is halted, civilians will lose protection in this conflict, facts will be hard to come by, and intermediaries on the ground in Syria will be nonexistent. Violence escalated after the mission left to file the report. Getting them back is unarguably the right course of action, particularly as it appears the UN Security Council cannot solve the crisis.
Sharmine Narwani is a commentary writer and political analyst covering the Middle East. You can follow Sharmine on twitter@snarwani.
Iconic Cuban leader Fidel Castro has personally presented a two-volume memoir, entitled ‘Fidel Castro Ruz: Partisan of Time,’ in his first public appearance since April 2011. The nearly thousand-page memoir tells Castro's story from childhood to 1958, a short time before the triumph of the Cuban Revolution. The 85-year-old politician spoke with an audience for nearly six hours about various political issues, including the situation in Syria, Iran and Latin America.
According to Granma newspaper, in a meeting held this Friday in the Convention Palace, the leader took advantage of the launching of the two-volume book which ranges from his childhood until December 1958, before the triumph of the Revolution, to discuss current issues.
In this sense he commented he reads hundreds of news dispatches every day, particularly following in detail the situation in Venezuela, where its president Hugo Chavez heads a transformation process focused on social inclusion and regional integrity.
Issues such as the struggles of Latin American students and the world for their rights, the threats to Syria and Iran, the risk of shale gas, prospects for nanotechnology and the importance of Internet were addressed by Fidel Castro.
