By Carla Stea
“I ask all States with influence on the parties in Syria to use it now to ensure an end to the bloodshed and the beginning of dialogue.”
“I call upon all parties with influence on the opposition to urge that they also cease all violence.”
“Further militarization of the conflict is not a solution.”
“Depending on what comes next, could have an impact on the whole region.”
“The United States and dozens of other countries moved closer on Sunday to direct intervention in the fighting in Syria, with Arab nations pledging $100 million to pay opposition fighters, and the Obama administration agreeing to send ‘communication equipment to help the rebels organize and evade Syria’s military’…the moves reflected a growing consensus, at least among the officials who met here under the rubric “Friends of Syria,” that mediation efforts by the United Nations peace envoy Kofi Annan, were failing to end the violence….“With Russia and China blocking United Nations measures that could open the way for military action, the countries lined up against the government of President Bashar al-Assad sought to bolster Syria’s beleaguered opposition through means that seemed to stretch the definition of humanitarian assistance and blur the line between so-called lethal and non-lethal support.”
In fact, it is the threat that UN Special Envoy Kofi Annan might succeed in bringing about some form of cessation of violence in Syria, without demanding regime change, that motivates the “Friends of Syria” commitment of financial and military aid for the Syrian opposition on April 1, ten days before the deadline set by Kofi Annan for Syrian government withdrawal from population centers (a deadline initially accepted by the Syrian government) and 12 days before the demand that the opposition similarly cease all forms of violence.
Assured of massive external support that might enable them to fight successfully to overthrow the government of Assad, the Al-Qaeda infiltrated opposition has every reason for confidence in ultimate victory, and has every reason for sabotaging the success of Kofi Annan’s efforts.
“The Security Council requests the Envoy to update the council on the cessation of violence in accordance with the above timeline, and progress toward implementation of his six-point proposal in its entirety. In the light of these reports, the Security Council will consider further steps as appropriate.”
The “Friends of Syria” pledge of support to the Syrian opposition is no less than support for increased action by terrorists, now unabashedly encouraged by the US commitment of aid to the Anti-Assad forces.
“Everybody backed Kofi Annan’s peace plan. Then all of a sudden another meeting of the Friends of Syria group makes decisions urging the Syria opposition to refuse negotiations and arm, promising new sanctions against Syria.”
“The terrorist acts committed by the armed terrorist groups in Syria have increased during the last few days, particularly after reaching an understanding on Kofi Annan’s plan,” said Assad’s letter to the United Nations Secretary General and President of the UN Security Council.
One could make a strong case that the April 1 Friends of Syria declaration of financial and military support for the opposition was deliberately intended to sabotage Kofi Annan’s efforts for a cease-fire and negotiated peace, and set the stage for civil war, which will be portrayed, inevitably as the responsibility of the Syrian government.At this point the now infamous “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) will be invoked.
“As developments in Libya and Syria show, the principle of R2P is being used for regime change. Consider this: Resolution 1973 had five points ~ ceasefire with the mediation of the AU, use of all necessary means to protect civilians, no-fly zone, arms embargo and targeted sanctions.“How was Resolution 1973 implemented? As soon as the resolution was adopted, the overenthusiastic members of the international community stopped talking of the AU. Its efforts to bring about a ceasefire were completely ignored. The only aspect of the resolution of interest to them was “use of all necessary means” to bomb the hell out of Libya.”“In clear violation of the resolution, arms were supplied to civilians without any consideration of its consequences. No-fly zone was selectively implemented only for flights in and out of Tripoli. And targeted measures were implemented insofar as they suited the objective of regime change. All kinds of mechanisms were created to support one party of the conflict and attempts were made to bypass the sanctions committee by proposing resolutions to the council.”It goes without saying that the pro-interventionist powers did not ever try to bring about a peaceful end to the crisis in Libya. Now consider Syria…as early as May 2011 a resolution was proposed to impose sanctions. President Assad was declared to have lost legitimacy. The opposition was discouraged to engage with the government and the armed groups started receiving support ostensibly to defend themselves. These examples clearly underline the problem. The problem in the eyes of the vast majority of the international community is simple and clear:“The principle of R2P is being selectively used to promote national interest rather than protect civilians…If this does not change, I am afraid the noble idea of R2P will come into disrepute. Indeed, the Libyan case has already given R2P a bad name…We must not end with a situation where saving hundreds causes the killing of thousands. The UN must act impartially and must not take sides.”
Syria is Russia’s last foothold in the Middle East. And it appears that NATO is establishing a foothold within the very heart of Russia, having obtained agreement for a NATO transit hub on the Volga, the river connecting European Russia with the vast oil wealth and resource rich Eastern part of the Russian Federation.
It now appears possible that the only curb on NATO’s global dominance will be the economic crisis plaguing NATO’s capitalist partners, and the violent riots now occurring in NATO countries, as civilian victims of “austerity measures” are demonstrating to protest the slashing of social protection programs required to service the enormous cost of militarization necessary for NATO membership.