MI5 Brit talks about coup

 

4 March, 23:55

Ukraine was coup d'état by the CIA – David Shayler

© Photo "Golos stolitsy" (Voice of capital/Kiev)

 

Download audio file

What has occurred in Ukraine was not a popular revolution, it was a carefully orchestrated coup d'état. The "demonstrators" with the metal barricades, bullet proof vest, army helmets, weapons, shield and masks were very well organized and trained. The whole affair was orchestrated by the West in an attempt to bring Ukraine into NATO and split Russia. Mr. David Shayler a former MI5 officer spoke to the Voice of Russia on the activities of the intelligence services and on what the forces behind the scenes are doing. He says President Putin is merely protecting his country and his people and is in a strong position.

Hello this is John Robles your listening to an interview with Mr. David Shayler, he's a former MI-5 officer, turned whistleblower and truth campaigner. This is part 1 of a longer interview.

 

Robles: Hello David how are you this evening?

Shayler: Hello John I am fine. Thanks for having me on the show again.

Robles: Thanks for agreeing to speak to us. It is a very difficult time for Russia, for Ukraine, very strained relations. Something is getting lost in the media coverage in the West and I've seen a lot of reports from the West it is completely skewed. What is being lost, I think, is the fact that 80% or more of the Ukrainian population are Russian-speaking or Russian nationals and their rights are being obliterated. Can you comment on what you know about, since you are former intelligence officer, on subversive operations by NATO and the West in Ukraine? What do you think their objective is?

Shayler: When I first saw this it was absolutely clear to me that this was not a popular revolution. Immediately you had people turning up with metal barricades, they were very organized, they were in masks and so on. Now I would say if I was pissed off with my government, now I'm going to demonstrate, where would I get a metal barricade from?

So, clearly these people are paid mercenaries and this revolution was nothing to do with the will of the people. As you say, most of the people in the Ukraine either speak Russian or have relations in Russia and so on. This was something that's been orchestrated by the west, they've been trying to start the Third World War, and we saw that last year in Syria. It failed then, but they are obviously now trying to open another front to try and cause that war.

And what's a bit curious in this country has been the propaganda for both sides, on the one hand we've been told on certain newspapers, this is Putin trying to build an empire, and you've only got to look at the maps of bases that go around Iran, US bases, to see what empire building looks like. And obviously, I don't believe Vladimir Putin is trying to build an empire at all, I think he is trying to protect his own country.

And on the other hand, we've had people then trying to say that Putin is extremely, in a very weak position. No, he is not in a weak position, because he supplies gas to Europe basically. Now people are trying to say "Oh he couldn't turn the gas off, it's got to be a bad news for him", but if he turned that gas off, Europe would be ruined in about 3 or 4 days.

So, Putin once again is in a very strong position, he played his hand very, very well in Syria, and won enormous admiration in the west, he has won enormous admiration in the west for setting up Russia Today, which is the fastest growing English news channel, and the one that we all log on to, we don't trust the BBC anymore, we don't trust our mainstream media in this country.

So, the idea that it is some kind of Russian operation to try and take over the world, it is just absolutely nonsense, it belongs to the old rhetoric of the Cold War, and as we saw then most of that stuff in that period of the Cold War, was that the American intelligence inventing things about the Soviet Union to try and get more funding, and to get more intelligence officers and so on.

And when the Soviet Union collapsed - they didn't predict that - and it was quite obvious the Soviets weren't trying to take over the world in the way that they suggested. So, this whole thing, from the beginning to the end, is a total nonsense of the western coverage.

It is uncritical of people like John Kerry, when he says "unacceptable for Russian troops to go into the Crimea". I mean, we've got troops in Afghanistan still, we had huge invasions of Iraq, we've had illegal activity in Libya, in a country that is now, again, being taken over by Islamic extremists.

So, people in this country make comments, but they don't seem to be able to see that the west is doing these things far worse than any other country. But there is a good reason why this is happening, because the economy of the west is about to collapse. There have been articles suggesting that the spring of this year will be when we start to see the collapse, somebody has even named the date of March 4th 2014, which is actually tomorrow, because they've got to a point now where they can't go either way, they can't put interest rates any lower, and they can't print any more money without devaluing the currency.

So, they've got to do one or the other, and either of them are going to lead to massive chaos on the streets. People are going to start losing their homes, they are not going to be able to afford food, and that is that. So that's why we are seeing all this propaganda in the western media. It is just that – it is propaganda. This was a textbook revolution stoked up by western intelligence services basically.

Robles: The coverage now, if you could. You are in the UK, you are bombarded with this propaganda, they are putting out, and I've had people say it is so egregious, it seems like pre-invasion or pre-war propaganda, I mean threats, and these are repeated. First it was Obama saying there is going to be a price to pay etc, characterizations I've heard of in the western media that there are these innocent little Ukrainian soldiers being surrounded by this huge Russian invasion force. Actually in Crimea all of the military, they switched sides, they declared the generals, the commanders, they all said the government in Kiev is illegitimate, they are now under the command of the Governor of Crimea.

Shayler: In the west they have reported that these Ukrainian generals who have refused to play ball, are going to be charged with treason. But doing this is not treason, as you say, this was a democratically elected government. But what we saw over the last few days, in weeks, and everything in Kiev, I say has been a violent insurrection, there have been lots and lots of people killed.

Now could you imagine if that had been the streets of London and we had been protesting, and taking police kidnap, and shooting people? The western media would not be reporting that as a popular revolution, they would be reporting that as an armed insurrection, which is what it is.

Robles: It was even worse than that David, they were actually, they were killing police officers who were unarmed. They were shooting them in the head, snipers shooting them in the head. There was like 89 police officers, with either … out of all of them were either killed or taken to hospital. They had bullet wounds to their head or the neck.

Shayler: Yes, no, this is what we are seeing; it is a bit like a few years ago with Georgia as well. The western media was full of how the Russians were invading Georgia, and then Putin sent over Gorbachev because he had got quite a profile in the west, to actually come and tell western governments that this was all a load of rubbish. If it hadn't been for intervention of Gorbachev, whom they trusted, that could have provoked a war.

And as I say, the problem is, the people … the powers that that be are in absolutely desperate situation. They've been pursuing these lies, these policies that are impoverishing the British people, impoverishing the people of the west, and they thought they could get away with it by starting the Third World War in Syria, because once they've done that, they can bring in all sorts of repression, all sorts of austerity and no one can complain. Now it hasn't happened, so 6 months down the line from that failure to invade Syria they are now being exposed on all fronts.

The only place where they still have any reputation, or they try and preserve any reputation is in the western mainstream media. But believe me, our alternative news people here, people who are doing their own websites, the bloggers, and all those people have seen through this stuff.

So, let's take some solace from that, but the vast majority, well I know they don't take part in blogging, but certainly not the people I know. I don't think they are probably representative, but there are certainly a lot of people in this country who know the truth of what is going on, and this is western propaganda and the Russians are just trying to defend their own stage. I say, I put out a spoof article saying "breaking news, Russia sites missiles in Cuba", kind of thing, because that is how crazy it is. If the Russians are siting missiles in Cuba, provoking revolutions in Mexico on the doorstep of America, the Americans would have something to say about that. Of course they would.

It just shows how stupid the whole thing is. And I say, I just cannot get inside the heads of western leaders; I cannot believe that in this day and age they cannot know what is going on. Obviously they try and insulate them, they lead very strange lives, American presidents are constantly watched by the secret service, even when they no longer presidents.

And that way of course, they can't talk to anybody they shouldn't be speaking to, because the secret service will report it back again. But even in those circumstances surely these people must have some time to get on the Internet and just check things for themselves. But they don't. And I say, that is a frightening, frightening state of affairs. It really is.

Robles: So, do you believe that Obama is ignorant of the real situation in Ukraine?

Shayler: Well I tend to think that the reason they choose these people is because they have a level of stupidity and compliance. You see stuff on the Internet saying it is all a conspiracy, and Obama is part of it, Tony Blair was part of it, and so on. But what those people never seem to allow for is just sheer human vanity and ego, and stupidity. These are people who are academically educated, that can be extremely stupid when it comes to actually thinking for themselves. So, I generally think they keep people away from it, so they can actually, obviously go on the television and say the lies without realizing they are lies.

If they work for television they knew there were lies, they might give it away through their facial ticks and body language. That is my personal opinion; I don't think these people are signed up to it, but I fully believe that behind that, in terms of the military, the intelligence, those organizations have been penetrated by the Zionists. Now, once you understand all of that, you begin to understand what is going on in the world at the moment.

Robles: Zbigniew Brzezinski has populated the entire US foreign policy establishment, the top of it, including Obama's advisors - they are all Brzezinski acolytes. From your view, as someone who was on the inside, what can you tell us about Brzezinski?

Shayler: I only know about Brzezinski, what I've seen on the Internet and so on, but he does appear to be part of this New World Order, and it is about control of the media through membership, through discrediting the enemies of the media through off-the-record briefings, and in fact we've actually had this leaked recently, something that Edward Snowden took.

It has been written about by Glenn Greenwald, and they've now released the actual slides for a presentation of a secret section of GCHQ, which is like the Joint Intelligence Task something or other, and all the things I've been talking about, how they stop you by creating false victims on the Internet, or go on the Internet and claim that you've done something to them, by taking away your means of income, by trying to discredit you in all ways. This is now a matter of record.

All of the things I've been saying for 16 years of intelligence services and the secret services have now all been disclosed but that doesn't seem to get through to parliament, it hasn't stopped the head GCHQ from going to the parliamentary committee and go and see the intelligence services and say they are working in our interest, they are trying to protect us. They are clearly not. The whole invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq have put the citizens of the west at far greater risk of attack.

Robles: Now how is the UK involved? Now, after 9/11, I don't know if you are aware of General Wesley Clark. He was shocked himself that Paul Wolfowitz came to him one day, he was assistant secretary of Defense in the US, Clark was the Head of NATO, and he told him, we are now in the business of destroying countries. And they came out with this list of 7 countries that they had to destroy in 5 years. How is UK involved in all that? Where do they play in?

Shayler: What we play is the kind of junior partner of the US, don't we, we call it special relationship, so we live in this country with American airbases, we have no independent UK, we've got 5 nuclear weapons as well as Americans, so we essentially are the first country to become colonized by the Americans using the new form of neo-imperialism.

They've got some basis but you don't need a law soldiers there, it is more a kind of imperialism done through the control of the political class in the media. When you look at the power of the CIA, the CIA is a larger economy than many of the economies in Africa, they own companies, airlines, publishing companies. Then you realize the CIA has got enormous tentacles and I am now inclined to believe the CIA was behind the problems we had for example during the minor strike in 1980s.

There was a man called Roger Windsor, we worked for National Union of Mineworkers, who basically to try to avoid sequestrations, sent money out of the accounts abroad, but that could easily be traced. And he'd actually cut his teeth in organization, I can't remember the name of, but it was known to be a CIA-funded organization. This man was alleged to be an MI-5 agent and he approached me after I blew a whistle. He came to me and said "do you think I am MI-5 agent?". I said, "no, I don't, I think your profile was not like to be an MI-5 agent".

Then I looked at his case and the conclusion I came to is that he was MI-6 agent. Next time he phoned me up, he says "do you think I am an MI-5 agent?" – I said no, he says "good". And then I say, "you are an MI-6 agent", at which point he put the phone down. MI-6 and CIA work very closely.

What it does with MI-6 is MI-6 is funded by CIA but there is no freedom of information in Britain surrounding the intelligence services. So, the things the CIA can't do in America, in case to it, they get MI-6 to do, knowing that nobody in Britain is allowed to see what MI-6 does and therefore they will be clear basically.

 

Ukraine was coup d'état by the CIA – David Shayler - News - VoR Interviews - The Voice of Russia: News, Breaking news, Politics

 

Stephen F. Cohen: Distorting Russia

Distorting Russia

How the American media misrepresent Putin, Sochi and Ukraine.

Stephen F. Cohen <http://www.thenation.com/authors/stephen-f-cohen>

February 11, 2014 | This article appeared in the March 3, 2014 edition
of The Nation. <http://www.thenation.com/issue/march-3-2014>



(Reuters/Mikhail Klimentyev/RIA Novosti/Pool)

The degradation of mainstream American press coverage of Russia, a country
still vital to US national security, has been under way for many years. If
the recent tsunami of shamefully unprofessional and politically inflammatory
articles in leading newspapers and magazines—particularly about the Sochi
Olympics, Ukraine and, unfailingly, President Vladimir Putin—is an
indication, this media malpractice is now pervasive and the new norm.

There are notable exceptions, but a general pattern has developed. Even in
the venerable New York Times and Washington Post, news reports, editorials
and commentaries no longer adhere rigorously to traditional journalistic
standards, often failing to provide essential facts and context; to make a
clear distinction between reporting and analysis; to require at least two
different political or "expert" views on major developments; or to publish
opposing opinions on their op-ed pages. As a result, American media on
Russia today are less objective, less balanced, more conformist and scarcely
less ideological than when they covered Soviet Russia during the Cold War.

The history of this degradation is also clear. It began in the early 1990s,
following the end of the Soviet Union, when the US media adopted
Washington's narrative that almost everything President Boris Yeltsin did
was a "transition from communism to democracy" and thus in America's best
interests. This included his economic "shock therapy" and oligarchic looting
of essential state assets, which destroyed tens of millions of Russian
lives; armed destruction of a popularly elected Parliament and imposition of
a "presidential" Constitution, which dealt a crippling blow to
democratization and now empowers Putin; brutal war in tiny Chechnya, which
gave rise to terrorists in Russia's North Caucasus; rigging of his own
re-election in 1996; and leaving behind, in 1999, his approval ratings in
single digits, a disintegrating country laden with weapons of mass
destruction. Indeed, most American journalists still give the impression
that Yeltsin was an ideal Russian leader.

Since the early 2000s, the media have followed a different leader-centric
narrative, also consistent with US policy, that devalues multifaceted
analysis for a relentless demonization of Putin, with little regard for
facts. (Was any Soviet Communist leader after Stalin ever so personally
villainized?) If Russia under Yeltsin was presented as having legitimate
politics and national interests, we are now made to believe that Putin's
Russia has none at all, at home or abroad—even on its own borders, as in
Ukraine.

Russia today has serious problems and many repugnant Kremlin policies. But
anyone relying on mainstream American media will not find there any of their
origins or influences in Yeltsin's Russia or in provocative US policies
since the 1990s—only in the "autocrat" Putin who, however authoritarian, in
reality lacks such power. Nor is he credited with stabilizing a
disintegrating nuclear-armed country, assisting US security pursuits from
Afghanistan <http://www.thenation.com/afghanistan?lc=int_mb_1001> and Syria
to Iran or even with granting amnesty, in December, to more than 1,000
jailed prisoners, including mothers of young children.

Not surprisingly, in January The Wall Street Journal featured the widely
discredited former president of Georgia, Mikheil Saakashvili, branding
Putin's government as one of "deceit, violence and cynicism," with the
Kremlin a "nerve center of the troubles that bedevil the West." But wanton
Putin-bashing is also the dominant narrative in centrist, liberal and
progressive media, from the Post, Times and The New Republic to CNN, MSNBC
and HBO's Real Time With Bill Maher, where Howard Dean, not previously known
for his Russia expertise, recently declared, to the panel's approval,
"Vladimir Putin is a thug."

The media therefore eagerly await Putin's downfall—due to his "failing
economy" (some of its indicators are better than US ones), the valor of
street protesters and other right-minded oppositionists (whose policies are
rarely examined), the defection of his electorate (his approval ratings
remain around 65 percent) or some welcomed "cataclysm." Evidently believing,
as does the Times, for example, that democrats and a "much better future"
will succeed Putin (not zealous ultranationalists growing in the streets and
corridors of power), US commentators remain indifferent to what the
hoped-for "destabilization of his regime" might mean in the world's largest
nuclear country.

Certainly, The New Republic's lead writer on Russia, Julia Ioffe, does not
explore the question, or much else of real consequence, in her nearly
10,000-word February 17 cover story. Ioffe's bannered theme is devoutly
Putin-phobic: "He Crushed His Opposition and Has Nothing to Show for It But
a Country That Is Falling Apart." Neither sweeping assertion is spelled out
or documented. A compilation of chats with Russian-born Ioffe's disaffected
(but seemingly not "crushed") Moscow acquaintances and titillating personal
gossip long circulating on the Internet, the article seems better suited
(apart from some factual errors) for the Russian tabloids, as does Ioffe's
disdain for objectivity. Protest shouts of "Russia without Putin!" and
"Putin is a thief!" were "one of the most exhilarating moments I'd ever
experienced." So was tweeting "Putin's fucked, y'all." Nor does she forget
the hopeful mantra "cataclysm seems closer than ever now."

* * *

For weeks, this toxic coverage has focused on the Sochi Olympics and the
deepening crisis in Ukraine. Even before the Games began, the Times declared
the newly built complex a "Soviet-style dystopia" and warned in a headline,
Terrorism and Tension, Not Sports and Joy. On opening day, the paper found
space for three anti-Putin articles and a lead editorial, a feat rivaled by
the Post. Facts hardly mattered. Virtually every US report insisted that a
record $51 billion "squandered" by Putin on the Sochi Games proved they were
"corrupt." But as Ben Aris of Business New Europe pointed out, as much as
$44 billion may have been spent "to develop the infrastructure of the entire
region," investment "the entire country needs."

Overall pre-Sochi coverage was even worse, exploiting the threat of
terrorism so licentiously it seemed pornographic. The Post, long known among
critical-minded Russia-watchers as Pravda on the Potomac, exemplified the
media ethos. A sports columnist and an editorial page editor turned the
Olympics into "a contest of wills" between the despised Putin's "thugocracy"
and terrorist "insurgents." The "two warring parties" were so equated that
readers might have wondered which to cheer for. If nothing else, American
journalists gave terrorists an early victory, tainting "Putin's Games" and
frightening away many foreign spectators, including some relatives of the
athletes.

The Sochi Games will soon pass, triumphantly or tragically, but the
potentially fateful Ukrainian crisis will not. A new Cold War divide between
West and East may now be unfolding, not in Berlin but in the heart of
Russia's historical civilization. The result could be a permanent
confrontation fraught with instability and the threat of a hot war far worse
than the one in Georgia in 2008. These dangers have been all but ignored in
highly selective, partisan and inflammatory US media accounts, which portray
the European Union's "Partnership" proposal benignly as Ukraine's chance for
democracy, prosperity and escape from Russia, thwarted only by a "bullying"
Putin and his "cronies" in Kiev.

Not long ago, committed readers could count on The New York Review of Books
for factually trustworthy alternative perspectives on important historical
and contemporary subjects. But when it comes to Russia and Ukraine, the NYRB
has succumbed to the general media mania. In a January 21 blog post, Amy
Knight, a regular contributor and inveterate Putin-basher, warned the US
government against cooperating with the Kremlin on Sochi security, even
suggesting that Putin's secret services "might have had an interest in
allowing or even facilitating such attacks" as killed or wounded dozens of
Russians in Volgograd in December.

Knight's innuendo prefigured a purported report on Ukraine by Yale
professor Timothy Snyder in the February 20 issue. Omissions of facts, by
journalists or scholars, are no less an untruth than misstatements of fact.
Snyder's article was full of both, which are widespread in the popular
media, but these are in the esteemed NYRB and by an acclaimed academic.
Consider a few of Snyder's assertions:

§ "On paper, Ukraine is now a dictatorship." In fact, the "paper"
legislation he's referring to hardly constituted dictatorship, and in any
event was soon repealed. Ukraine is in a state nearly the opposite of
dictatorship—political chaos uncontrolled by President Viktor Yanukovych,
the Parliament, the police or any other government institution.

§ "The [parliamentary] deputies…have all but voted themselves out of
existence." Again, Snyder is alluding to the nullified "paper." Moreover,
serious discussions have been under way in Kiev about reverting to
provisions in the 2004 Constitution that would return substantial
presidential powers to the legislature, hardly "the end of parliamentary
checks on presidential power," as Snyder claims. (Does he dislike the
prospect of a compromise outcome?)

§ "Through remarkably large and peaceful public protests…Ukrainians have
set a positive example for Europeans." This astonishing statement may have
been true in November, but it now raises questions about the "example"
Snyder is advocating. The occupation of government buildings in Kiev and in
Western Ukraine, the hurling of firebombs at police and other violent
assaults on law enforcement officers and the proliferation of anti-Semitic
slogans by a significant number of anti-Yanukovych protesters, all
documented and even televised, are not an "example" most readers would
recommend to Europeans or Americans. Nor are they tolerated, even if
accompanied by episodes of police brutality
<http://www.thenation.com/section/police-brutality?lc=int_mb_1001> , in any
Western democracy.

§ "Representatives of a minor group of the Ukrainian extreme right have
taken credit for the violence." This obfuscation implies that apart perhaps
from a "minor group," the "Ukrainian extreme right" is part of the positive
"example" being set. (Many of its representatives have expressed hatred for
Europe's "anti-traditional" values, such as gay rights.) Still more, Snyder
continues, "something is fishy," strongly implying that the mob violence is
actually being "done by russo-phone provocateurs" on behalf of "Yanukovych
(or Putin)." As evidence, Snyder alludes to "reports" that the instigators
"spoke Russian." But millions of Ukrainians on both sides of their incipient
civil war speak Russian.

§ Snyder reproduces yet another widespread media malpractice regarding
Russia, the decline of editorial fact-checking. In a recent article in the
International New York Times, he both inflates his assertions and tries to
delete neofascist elements from his innocuous "Ukrainian extreme right."
Again without any verified evidence, he warns of a Putin-backed "armed
intervention" in Ukraine after the Olympics and characterizes reliable
reports of "Nazis and anti-Semites" among street protesters as "Russian
propaganda."

§ Perhaps the largest untruth promoted by Snyder and most US media is the
claim that "Ukraine's future integration into Europe" is "yearned for
throughout the country." But every informed observer knows—from Ukraine's
history, geography, languages, religions, culture, recent politics and
opinion surveys—that the country is deeply divided as to whether it should
join Europe or remain close politically and economically to Russia. There is
not one Ukraine or one "Ukrainian people" but at least two, generally
situated in its Western and Eastern regions.

Such factual distortions point to two flagrant omissions by Snyder and
other US media accounts. The now exceedingly dangerous confrontation between
the two Ukraines was not "ignited," as the Times claims, by Yanukovych's
duplicitous negotiating—or by Putin—but by the EU's reckless ultimatum, in
November, that the democratically elected president of a profoundly divided
country choose between Europe and Russia. Putin's proposal for a tripartite
arrangement, rarely if ever reported, was flatly rejected by US and EU
officials.

But the most crucial media omission is Moscow's reasonable conviction that
the struggle for Ukraine is yet another chapter in the West's ongoing,
US-led march toward post-Soviet Russia, which began in the 1990s with NATO's
eastward expansion and continued with US-funded NGO political activities
inside Russia, a US-NATO military outpost in Georgia and missile-defense
installations near Russia. Whether this longstanding Washington-Brussels
policy is wise or reckless, it—not Putin's December financial offer to save
Ukraine's collapsing economy—is deceitful. The EU's "civilizational"
proposal, for example, includes "security policy" provisions, almost never
reported, that would apparently subordinate Ukraine to NATO.

Any doubts about the Obama administration's real intentions in Ukraine
should have been dispelled by the recently revealed taped conversation
between a top State Department official, Victoria Nuland, and the US
ambassador in Kiev. The media predictably focused on the source of the
"leak" and on Nuland's verbal "gaffe"—"Fuck the EU." But the essential
revelation was that high-level US officials were plotting to "midwife" a
new, anti-Russian Ukrainian government by ousting or neutralizing its
democratically elected president—that is, a coup.

Americans are left with a new edition of an old question. Has Washington's
twenty-year winner-take-all approach to post-Soviet Russia shaped this
degraded news coverage, or is official policy shaped by the coverage? Did
Senator John McCain stand in Kiev alongside the well-known leader of an
extreme nationalist party because he was ill informed by the media, or have
the media deleted this part of the story because of McCain's folly?

And what of Barack Obama's decision to send only a low-level delegation,
including retired gay athletes, to Sochi? In August, Putin virtually saved
Obama's presidency by persuading Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to
eliminate his chemical weapons. Putin then helped to facilitate Obama's
heralded opening to Iran. Should not Obama himself have gone to Sochi—either
out of gratitude to Putin, or to stand with Russia's leader against
international terrorists who have struck both of our countries? Did he not
go because he was ensnared by his unwise Russia policies, or because the US
media misrepresented the varying reasons cited: the granting of asylum to
Edward Snowden, differences on the Middle East, infringements on gay rights
in Russia, and now Ukraine? Whatever the explanation, as Russian
intellectuals say when faced with two bad alternatives, "Both are worst."

http://www.thenation.com/article/178344/distorting-russia

Washington's Man Yatsenyuk Setting Ukraine Up For Ruin

Comment Now

Follow Comments

Ukraine's interim prime minister, Arseniy "Yats" Yatsenyuk, may prove to be arsenic to the beleaguered nation.

"Recall the phone exchange between the Ukraine ambassador and Victoria Nuland (Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs) that got leaked out, where she basically said 'we want Yats in there.' They like him because he's pro Western," says Vladimir Signorelli, president of boutique investment research firm Bretton Woods Research LLC in New Jersey. "Yatsenyuk is the the kind of technocrat you want if you want austerity, with the veneer of professionalism," Signorelli said. "He's the type of guy who can hobnob with the European elite. A Mario Monti type: unelected and willing to do the IMFs bidding," he said.

Mario Monti was a centrist Italian technocrat who passed an austerity package that called for increased taxes, pension reform and measures to fight tax evasion.

Over the past several weeks, Ukraine has been battling political infighting between pro-Russian Ukrainians and pro-Europeans. The fight stepped into high gear in the fall when Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych decided to tilt towards Moscow instead of Brussels in a trade deal.  Last week, Yanukovych left Kiev and headed to an undisclosed location, believed to be holed up in a Russian Naval base.

After Yanukovych and the political opposition agreed to an orderly transition toward new elections, the opposition shattered the agreement quickly and took strategic positions around Kiev. Many voices in the Western press say the country could break apart.

Despite these ominous signs, Ukraine Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt hailed the current crisis as "a day for the history books." Most of the mainstream media have leaned decisively in the anti-Yanukovych camp.

Ukraine's new 450-seat parliament approved the appointment of the former Central Banker Yatsenyuk on Thursday by a vote of 371 to 1. Oddly enough, earlier this month, the pro-Western Yats trailed behind popular opposition leaders such as former heavyweight boxer Viltali Klitschko and the leader of the nationalist, Svoboda Party, Oleh Tyahnybok. But Yats had friends in high places and while he does not have strong support of the electorate, and would have no chance of winning an election, he is pro-IMF austerity and apparently the bulk of parliament is as well.

"Yatsenyuk was saying that what the Greeks did to themselves we are going to do ourselves," said Signorelli. "He wants to follow the Greek economic model. Who the hell wants to follow that?"

Also today, Yatsenyuk promised to implement "very unpopular measures" to stabilize the country's finances. The government said it needs $35 billion to support the country over the next two years. His language in a news report broadcast by Bloomberg today indicates he is heading toward a potentially destabilizing austerity campaign:

"The treasury is empty. We will do everything not to default. If we get the financial support from the IMF, the U.S., we will do it. I'm going to be the most unpopular prime minister in the history of my country," he said. "But this is the only solution. I would never promise any kind of huge achievements. First and the most important issue is to stabilize the situation."

He also said that, "We want Russia to have transparent and fair relations with Ukraine. We want to be partners with Russia…we strongly believe it will never intervene with a military force in Ukraine."

Under the brewing divide-and-conquer political crisis lies Ukraine's economic problems. The Ukrainian currency, the hryvnia, is down over 16% year-to-date, a record decline against the dollar.

It is unclear the kind of measures Yatsenyuk will tolerate, but it appears austerity is the path forward. That includes a regimen of tax increases, interest rate hikes and further currency devaluation.

Yanukovych resisted the International Monetary Fund's demand to raise taxes and devalue the currency. Yatsenyuk doesn't mind. For economists who think austerity is a disaster, Ukraine is on a path to ruin.

"We saw this in the 90s and what the IMF did to Russia with Yeltsin. They'll do that to Ukraine," said Signorelli. Remember Slobodan Milošević in Yugoslavia? After the IMF finished with Yugoslavia it was only a matter of time before the separatist movements gained traction," he said. "I think things in Ukraine can get really really bad."

 

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2014/02/27/washingtons-man-yatsenyuk-setting-ukraine-up-for-ruin/

Politicised NATO

Politicized Nobel

 

Wednesday, 30^th December 2013

Živadin Jovanović
Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals

Recently a news came from Washington that some US congressmen initiated that Nobel Peace Award for 2013 be given to the Lady Catherine Ashton, EU Commissar for Foreign Policy and Security, Ivica Dacic, Prime Minister of Serbia and Hashim Tachi, "Prime Minister of self-proclaimed Republic of Kosova", in recognition for reaching  so called Brussels Agreement on Normalization, under EU auspices, in April 2013. 

For quite some time, the Nobel Prize has been heavily politicized and compromised due to its being awarded not for genuine contributions to peace and democracy but rather abused as a tool for imposing imperialistic interests of western power centers on other countries and nations. What does it mean if, for example, this award was given to someone responsible for a renewed arms race, for the chaos reigning today in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and other countries as well as  and for the global bugging and spying on own citizens and closest allies!

Such a reward could hardly promote peace, democracy, observance of the principles of international law and other true civilization values. It serves rather as a tool for promotion of obedience, dictate and inequality, in the interests of selfish corporative financial capital.

The initiative was moved by the Albanian lobby in Washington, which itself speaks of its objectivity and principled nature. In the core of it lie the interests of the very same power centers which in 1999 had launched the armed aggression against Serbia (the FRY), and which in 2013 imposed on Serbia the dictate called "Brussels Agreement" on Kosovo and Metohija. True meaning of this dictate is - seizure of a part of state territory of Serbia, violation of international law, particularly, violation of the UN SC resolution 1244 (1999) guaranteeing sovereignty and territorial integrity of Serbia. This dictate is aimed at legalizing true goal of the 1999 NATO armed aggression and the amnestying of the NATO leaders from the crime against peace and humanity. Evidently, all this has nothing to do with peace, stability and justice.

What, really, are morality and criteria of those who put on equal footing peace deeds of Baroness Catherine Ashton, EU Commissar for Foreign Policy and Security and Hashim Tachi, nick-named "Snake", former leader of the terrorist KLA organization, person who has been indicated by the Report of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe as involved in human organ harvesting and trafficking, who has been accused of sponsoring international organized crime, such as drug, arms and human beings smuggling?  

 

What Putin Has to Say to Americans About Syria

---

September 11, 2013

A Plea for Caution From Russia

By VLADIMIR V. PUTIN

MOSCOW — RECENT events surrounding Syria have prompted me to speak directly to the American people and their political leaders. It is important to do so at a time of insufficient communication between our societies.

Relations between us have passed through different stages. We stood against each other during the cold war. But we were also allies once, and defeated the Nazis together. The universal international organization — the United Nations — was then established to prevent such devastation from ever happening again.

The United Nations' founders understood that decisions affecting war and peace should happen only by consensus, and with America's consent the veto by Security Council permanent members was enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The profound wisdom of this has underpinned the stability of international relations for decades.

No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage. This is possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take military action without Security Council authorization.

The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the pope, will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria's borders. A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance.

Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multireligious country. There are few champions of democracy in Syria. But there are more than enough Qaeda fighters and extremists of all stripes battling the government. The United States State Department has designated Al Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, fighting with the opposition, as terrorist organizations. This internal conflict, fueled by foreign weapons supplied to the opposition, is one of the bloodiest in the world.

Mercenaries from Arab countries fighting there, and hundreds of militants from Western countries and even Russia, are an issue of our deep concern. Might they not return to our countries with experience acquired in Syria? After all, after fighting in Libya, extremists moved on to Mali. This threatens us all.

From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law. We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today's complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression.

No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists. Reports that militants are preparing another attack — this time against Israel — cannot be ignored.

It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America's long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan "you're either with us or against us."

But force has proved ineffective and pointless. Afghanistan is reeling, and no one can say what will happen after international forces withdraw. Libya is divided into tribes and clans. In Iraq the civil war continues, with dozens killed each day. In the United States, many draw an analogy between Iraq and Syria, and ask why their government would want to repeat recent mistakes.

No matter how targeted the strikes or how sophisticated the weapons, civilian casualties are inevitable, including the elderly and children, whom the strikes are meant to protect.

The world reacts by asking: if you cannot count on international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your security. Thus a growing number of countries seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This is logical: if you have the bomb, no one will touch you. We are left with talk of the need to strengthen nonproliferation, when in reality this is being eroded.

We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement.

A new opportunity to avoid military action has emerged in the past few days. The United States, Russia and all members of the international community must take advantage of the Syrian government's willingness to place its chemical arsenal under international control for subsequent destruction. Judging by the statements of President Obama, the United States sees this as an alternative to military action.

I welcome the president's interest in continuing the dialogue with Russia on Syria. We must work together to keep this hope alive, as we agreed to at the Group of 8 meeting in Lough Erne in Northern Ireland in June, and steer the discussion back toward negotiations.

If we can avoid force against Syria, this will improve the atmosphere in international affairs and strengthen mutual trust. It will be our shared success and open the door to cooperation on other critical issues.

My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States' policy is "what makes America different. It's what makes us exceptional." It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord's blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.

Vladimir V. Putin is the president of Russia.

 

http://nyti.ms/15lcB4C

---

September 6, 2013

Obama Stymied in Bid to Rally World Leaders on Syria Strike

By PETER BAKER and STEVEN LEE MYERS

STRELNA, Russia — President Obama ran into an impasse on Friday in his bid to rally international backing for a military strike on Syria as world leaders wrapped up a summit meeting here remaining deeply divided over the right response to what the Americans have called the deadliest nerve gas attack in decades.

After a dinner debate that lasted into the early morning hours of Friday, Mr. Obama emerged with a few supporters but no consensus, as other leaders urged him not to attack without United Nations permission, which is not forthcoming. Instead, the president had to resign himself to generalized statements of concern over the use of chemical weapons.

The failure to forge a stronger coalition here in the face of opposition from the Russian host, President Vladimir V. Putin, raised the risks even further for Mr. Obama as he headed home to lobby Congress to give him the backing his international peers would not. It also left Mr. Obama in the awkward position of defending his right to take action largely alone if necessary after campaigning against what he portrayed as the unilateralist foreign policy of his predecessor, George W. Bush.

Mr. Obama acknowledged that he had a "hard sell" with Congress and announced that he would deliver a televised address to the nation Tuesday evening from the White House.

"Failing to respond to this breach of this international norm would send a signal to rogue nations, authoritarian regimes and terrorist organizations that they can use W.M.D. and not pay a consequence," he said at a news conference, using the initials for weapons of mass destruction. "And that's not a world we want to live in."

But much of the world, at least as represented at the Group of 20 meeting here in this St. Petersburg suburb, did not favor Mr. Obama's proposed course of action. Mr. Putin said a majority of the leaders joined him in opposing a military strike independent of United Nations approval, including those from Argentina, Brazil, China, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy and South Africa.

Citing remarks by Jacob Zuma, the South African president, Mr. Putin said: " 'Small countries in today's world in general are feeling increasingly vulnerable and unprotected. There is an impression any superpower at any moment at its discretion may use force.' And he's right."

The only countries that supported Mr. Obama's plan, the Russian leader said, were Canada, France, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, all nations that were on Mr. Obama's side when he arrived here on Thursday.

Trying to counter the impression of isolation, the White House arranged for a joint statement including those allies as well as Australia, Britain, Italy, Japan, Spain and South Korea condemning the Aug. 21 chemical weapons attack in the suburbs of the Syrian capital, Damascus, which according to American intelligence agencies, killed more than 1,400 people.

"We call for a strong international response to this grave violation of the world's rules and conscience that will send a clear message that this kind of atrocity can never be repeated," the statement said. "Those who perpetrated these crimes must be held accountable." Still, the statement did not explicitly endorse military action.

But Mr. Putin pointed to a statement issued by Pope Francis on Thursday opposing military strikes and cited polls showing that the citizens of most countries, including the United States, also did not favor an American-led strike. "I can assure you — and the latest polls say this as well — the overwhelming majority of the populations in these countries is on our side," he said, his voice rising combatively.

Even as Mr. Putin ardently argued against an American-led intervention, Russia's Navy continued preparations in the event of an attack. It has already dispatched at least four warships to the Mediterranean Sea, including three that passed through the Bosporus on Thursday, two landing ships and a destroyer.

Russian news agencies on Friday reported that additional ships would join the armada, but not until later in September. Mr. Putin's chief of staff, Sergei B. Ivanov, told reporters that the landing vessels were being sent in case it was necessary to evacuate Russian citizens from Syria.

Russia's deputy defense minister, Anatoly I. Antonov, said on Thursday that the ships would not intervene against American and other NATO warships that have also assembled in the region. "We don't intend, either directly or indirectly, to take part in a possible regional conflict," he said, according to the Web site of the Ministry of Defense.

Speaking with reporters as he was about to end his three-day overseas trip, Mr. Obama repeatedly refused to say whether he would abide by the Congressional vote he asked for authorizing the use of force against Syria if lawmakers say no.

"You're not getting any direct response," he said. But Antony Blinken, his principal deputy national security adviser, told NPR that while the president maintains that he has the authority to act regardless of Congress, "it's neither his desire nor his intention to use that authority absent Congress backing him."

The Syria dispute came to dominate the G-20 meeting and underscored the difficulty Mr. Obama has faced with Mr. Putin in recent months. After Russia gave temporary asylum to Edward J. Snowden, the National Security Agency contractor who disclosed secret American surveillance programs, Mr. Obama canceled a separate one-on-one meeting with Mr. Putin in Moscow.

But the two ended up talking on the sideline of the group session on Friday, mainly about their disagreement over Syria. Mr. Obama said Mr. Snowden's case did not really come up. "It was a candid and constructive conversation, which characterizes my relationship with him," Mr. Obama said.

For his part, Mr. Putin said the two leaders agreed to disagree during a friendly encounter on Thursday that lasted more than 20 minutes.

"We hear each other and understand the arguments," he said. "We simply don't agree with them. I don't agree with his arguments and he doesn't agree with mine, but we hear and try to analyze."

He added that they did agree that Syria ultimately needed a political settlement, and delegated the question to Russia's foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, and Secretary of State John Kerry. In May, the two officials announced an effort to begin negotiations for a settlement in Syria, to be held in Geneva, but that effort has since stalled and now seems further away than ever.

The president said he appreciated that Mr. Putin had allowed a full airing of views about Syria at the dinner on Thursday. By several accounts, it was a vigorous discussion in which Mr. Obama and Mr. Putin in effect were competing for support. Mr. Obama emerged having changed no one's mind about military force, but most of the leaders at least agreed with his assessment that the government of Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian president, was responsible for the attack, something Mr. Putin has dismissed as "utter nonsense."

"I've been encouraged by my discussions with my fellow leaders this week," Mr. Obama said Friday. "There is a growing recognition that the world cannot stand idly by."

But he acknowledged the deep reservations over the use of force and said he reminded the leaders at the dinner that he had opposed Mr. Bush's invasion of Iraq in 2003. "I was elected to end wars, not start them," Mr. Obama said he told them. "I'm not itching for military action."

In addition to the talk with Mr. Putin, Mr. Obama held more formal meetings with the leaders of Brazil, China, France, Japan and Mexico. His session with President François Hollande of France was his one meeting with an unalloyed supporter of military action against Syria. "Doing nothing would mean impunity," Mr. Hollande told reporters, "and there would be a risk of repeating, so we must take responsibility."

Mr. Hollande has called forcefully for intervention and spoken with certitude about Mr. Assad's responsibility for the chemical attack. France has no intention of intervening without an international coalition, however, and Mr. Hollande has been obliged to await the Congressional vote before taking action of any kind. On Friday, he announced that France would also await the findings of United Nations weapons inspectors who visited the site of the Aug. 21 attack. Their reports are not expected for at least two weeks.

"We're now going to wait for the decision by Congress," Mr. Hollande said Friday, "then the inspectors' report. And in light of these elements, I will, here again, have to take decisions."

Mr. Hollande offered no explanation for his decision to await the United Nations findings, but French lawmakers have in recent days increasingly called for him to do so.

The Chinese president, Xi Jinping, tried to dissuade Mr. Obama from the use of force during their talk on Friday, said Benjamin J. Rhodes, deputy national security adviser. "We've obviously had a difference with China on this issue," he said.

President Obama's conversations with President Dilma Rousseff of Brazil and President Enrique Peña Nieto of Mexico were intended to smooth over consternation in both countries about reports, based on Mr. Snowden's leaks, that the National Security Agency eavesdropped on both leaders' telephone calls, e-mails and text messages.

Ms. Rousseff told reporters afterward that Mr. Obama promised an investigation, but she held out the possibility that she might cancel a trip to Washington scheduled for next month. Mr. Peña Nieto told BBC that he also got a promise of an inquiry into the allegations and that Mr. Obama committed "to impose corresponding sanctions" if they were true.

While White House officials said that tension did not influence the Syria debate, neither leader backed military action.

Mr. Obama also made a point before leaving town of meeting with nine Russian activists to show support for groups and individuals who have come under pressure from Mr. Putin's government. Among them was a leader from a gay rights group, raising an issue that has grown especially sensitive in Europe and the United States since Russia outlawed pro-gay "propaganda" this summer.

But Mr. Obama had no critical words for Mr. Putin or his government during his comments in front of news cameras, instead focusing on his own history as a community organizer and offering general statements about the value of free press, independent opposition and civil society.

Mr. Obama was scheduled to land back in Washington on Friday night as he braced for what advisers consider one of the most critical Congressional debates of his presidency.

"I knew this was going to be a heavy lift," he said. "I was under no illusions when I embarked on this path. But I think it's the right thing to do. I think it's good for our democracy. We will be more effective if we are unified going forward."

Scott Sayare contributed reporting from Paris.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/07/world/middleeast/obama-syria-strike.html?hp&_r=0&pagewanted=all&pagewanted=print

Found at last! After searching for 10 years, the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction have finally been found – in Syria!

Found at last! After searching for 10 years, the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction have finally been found – in Syria!

 

 

http://www.killinghope.org/bblum6/aer120.html

Robert Fisk

Friday 30 August 2013

Iran, not Syria, is the West's real target

Iran is ever more deeply involved in protecting the Syrian government. Thus a victory for Bashar is a victory for Iran. And Iranian victories cannot be tolerated by the West

Before the stupidest Western war in the history of the modern world begins – I am, of course, referring to the attack on Syria that we all yet have to swallow – it might be as well to say that the cruise missiles which we confidently expect to sweep onto one of mankind's oldest cities have absolutely nothing to do with Syria. 

They are intended to harm Iran. They are intended to strike at the Islamic republic now that it has a new and vibrant president – as opposed to the crackpot Mahmoud Ahmadinejad – and when it just might be a little more stable.

Iran is Israel's enemy. Iran is therefore, naturally, America's enemy. So fire the missiles at Iran's only Arab ally.

There is nothing pleasant about the regime in Damascus. Nor do these comments let the regime off the hook when it comes to mass gassing. But I am old enough to remember that when Iraq – then America's ally – used gas against the Kurds of Hallabjah in 1988, we did not assault Baghdad. Indeed, that attack would have to wait until 2003, when Saddam no longer had any gas or any of the other weapons we had nightmares over.

And I also happen to remember that the CIA put it about in 1988 that Iran was responsible for the Hallabjah gassings, a palpable lie that focused on America's enemy whom Saddam was then fighting on our behalf. And thousands – not hundreds – died in Hallabjah. But there you go. Different days, different standards.

And I suppose it's worth noting that when Israel killed up to 17,000 men, women and children in Lebanon in 1982, in an invasion supposedly provoked by the attempted PLO murder of the Israeli ambassador in London – it was Saddam's mate Abu Nidal who arranged the killing, not the PLO, but that doesn't matter now – America merely called for both sides to exercise "restraint". And when, a few months before that invasion, Hafez al-Assad – father of Bashar – sent his brother up to Hama to wipe out thousands of Muslim Brotherhood rebels, nobody muttered a word of condemnation. "Hama Rules" is how my old mate Tom Friedman cynically styled this bloodbath.

Anyway, there's a different Brotherhood around these days – and Obama couldn't even bring himself to say "boo" when their elected president got deposed.

But hold on. Didn't Iraq – when it was "our" ally against Iran – also use gas on the Iranian army? It did. I saw the Ypres-like wounded of this foul attack by Saddam – US officers, I should add, toured the battlefield later and reported back to Washington – and we didn't care a tinker's curse about it. Thousands of Iranian soldiers in the 1980-88 war were poisoned to death by this vile weapon.

I travelled back to Tehran overnight on a train of military wounded and actually smelled the stuff, opening the windows in the corridors to release the stench of the gas. These young men had wounds upon wounds – quite literally. They had horrible sores wherein floated even more painful sores that were close to indescribable. Yet when the soldiers were sent to Western hospitals for treatment, we journos called these wounded – after evidence from the UN infinitely more convincing than what we're likely to get from outside Damascus – "alleged" gas victims.

 So what in heaven's name are we doing? After countless thousands have died in Syria's awesome tragedy, suddenly – now, after months and years of prevarication – we are getting upset about a few hundred deaths. Terrible. Unconscionable. Yes, that is true. But we should have been traumatised into action by this war in 2011. And 2012. But why now? 

I suspect I know the reason. I think that Bashar al-Assad's ruthless army might just be winning against the rebels whom we secretly arm. With the assistance of the Lebanese Hezbollah – Iran's ally in Lebanon – the Damascus regime broke the rebels in Qusayr and may be in the process of breaking them north of Homs. Iran is ever more deeply involved in protecting the Syrian government. Thus a victory for Bashar is a victory for Iran. And Iranian victories cannot be tolerated by the West.

 And while we're on the subject of war, what happened to those magnificent Palestinian-Israeli negotiations that John Kerry was boasting about? While we express our anguish at the hideous gassings in Syria, the land of Palestine continues to be gobbled up. Israel's Likudist policy – to negotiate for peace until there is no Palestine left – continues apace, which is why King Abdullah of Jordan's nightmare (a much more potent one than the "weapons of mass destruction" we dreamed up in 2003) grows larger: that "Palestine" will be in Jordan, not in Palestine.

 But if we are to believe the nonsense coming out of Washington, London, Paris and the rest of the "civilised" world, it's only a matter of time before our swift and avenging sword smiteth the Damascenes. To observe the leadership of the rest of the Arab world applauding this destruction is perhaps the most painful historical experience for the region to endure. And the most shameful. Save for the fact that we will be attacking Shia Muslims and their allies to the handclapping of Sunni Muslims. And that's what civil war is made of.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/iran-not-syria-is-the-wests-real-target-8789506.html?origin=internalSearch

---

August 23, 2013

Air War in Kosovo Seen as Precedent in Possible Response to Syria Chemical Attack

By MARK LANDLER and MICHAEL R. GORDON

WASHINGTON — As President Obama weighs options for responding to a suspected chemical weapons attack in Syria, his national security aides are studying the NATO air war in Kosovo as a possible blueprint for acting without a mandate from the United Nations.

With Russia still likely to veto any military action in the Security Council, the president appears to be wrestling with whether to bypass the United Nations, although he warned that doing so would require a robust international coalition and legal justification.

"If the U.S. goes in and attacks another country without a U.N. mandate and without clear evidence that can be presented, then there are questions in terms of whether international law supports it, do we have the coalition to make it work?" Mr. Obama said on Friday to CNN, in his first public comments after the deadly attack on Wednesday.

Mr. Obama described the attack as "clearly a big event of grave concern" and acknowledged that the United States had limited time to respond. But he said United Nations investigators needed to determine whether chemical weapons had been used.

Mr. Obama was meeting on Saturday morning with his national security staff to discuss Syria, according to a White House official, having returned from a two-day bus tour of upstate New York and Pennsylvania.

"We are going to act very deliberately so that we're making decisions consistent with our national interest as well as our assessment of what can advance our objectives in Syria," the official said.

Kosovo is an obvious precedent for Mr. Obama because, as in Syria, civilians were killed and Russia had longstanding ties to the government authorities accused of the abuses. In 1999, President Bill Clinton used the endorsement of NATO and the rationale of protecting a vulnerable population to justify 78 days of airstrikes.

A senior administration official said the Kosovo precedent was one of many subjects discussed in continuing White House meetings on the crisis in Syria. Officials are also debating whether a military strike would have unintended consequences, destabilize neighbors like Lebanon, or lead to even greater flows of refugees into Jordan, Turkey and Egypt.

"It's a step too far to say we're drawing up legal justifications for an action, given that the president hasn't made a decision," said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the deliberations. "But Kosovo, of course, is a precedent of something that is perhaps similar."

In the Mediterranean, the Navy's regional commander postponed a scheduled port call in Naples, Italy, for a destroyer so that the ship would remain with a second destroyer in striking distance of Syria during the crisis. Pentagon officials said the decision did not reflect any specific orders from Washington, but both destroyers had on board Tomahawk cruise missiles, long-range weapons that probably would be among the first launched against targets in Syria should the president decide to take military action.

On Friday, the Russian government called on President Bashar al-Assad of Syria to allow United Nations investigators into the areas east of Damascus where the attack occurred. But American and foreign diplomats said Russia's move did not reflect any shift in its backing of Mr. Assad or its resistance to punitive measures in the Security Council.

In a statement, Russia's foreign ministry put the onus on Syria's opposition forces to provide secure access to the site of the "reported incident." A second statement suggested that the Russians believed the attack was actually a provocation by the rebels. It cited reports criticizing government troops that were posted on the Internet hours before the attack.

"More and more evidence emerges indicating that this criminal act had an openly provocative character," Aleksandr K. Lukashevich, a spokesman for Russia's foreign ministry, said in the statement. "The talk here is about a previously planned action."

However, Mr. Lukashevich may have been confused by YouTube's practice of time-stamping uploaded videos based on the time in its California headquarters, no matter the originating time zone. The attacks occurred early Wednesday in Syria, when it would still have been Tuesday in California for about eight more hours.

Mr. Lukashevich praised the Assad government for welcoming Carla del Ponte, a member of a United Nations commission on Syria who suggested in May that the rebels had used chemical weapons, and he accused the Syrian opposition of not cooperating with the investigation by United Nations experts.

The Syrian government did not comment on Friday.

On Friday CBS News, citing administration officials, reported that American intelligence agencies detected activity at locations known to be chemical weapons sites before Wednesday's attack. The activity, these officials believe, may have been preparations for the assault.

Other Western officials have been less cautious than Mr. Obama. "I know that some people in the world would like to say that this is some kind of conspiracy brought about by the opposition in Syria," said William Hague, Britain's foreign secretary, in an interview with Sky News. "I think the chances of that are vanishingly small, and so we do believe that this is a chemical attack by the Assad regime."

Mr. Hague did not speak of using force, as France has, if the government was found to have been behind the attack. But he said it was "not something that a humane or civilized world can ignore."

Such statements carry echoes of Kosovo, where the Yugoslav government of Slobodan Milosevic brutally cracked down on ethnic Albanians in 1998 and 1999, prompting the Clinton administration to decide to act militarily in concert with NATO allies.

Mr. Clinton knew there was no prospect of securing a resolution from the Security Council authorizing the use of force. Russia was a longtime supporter of the Milosevic government and was certain to wield its vote in the Security Council to block action.

So the Clinton administration justified its actions, in part, as an intervention to protect a vulnerable and embattled population. NATO carried out airstrikes before Mr. Milosevic agreed to NATO demands, which required the withdrawal of Yugoslav forces.

"The argument in 1999 in the case of Kosovo was that there was a grave humanitarian emergency and the international community had the responsibility to act and, if necessary, to do so with force," said Ivo H. Daalder, a former United States ambassador to NATO who is now the president of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs.

In the case of Syria, Mr. Daalder said, the administration could argue that the use of chemical weapons had created a grave humanitarian emergency and that without a forceful response there would be a danger that the Assad government might use it on a large scale once again. Another basis for intervening in Syria, Mr. Daalder said, might be violation of the 1925 Geneva Protocol, which outlaws the use in war of poison gas. Dennis B. Ross, a former adviser to Mr. Obama on the Middle East, said that if the president wanted to develop a legal justification for acting, "there are lots of ways to do it outside the U.N. context."

Reporting was contributed by Mark Mazzetti and Thom Shanker from Washington, Steven Lee Myers from Moscow and David Jolly from Paris.

 

 

http://nyti.ms/1f8j2Jm