Russia Today 
24 January, 2012

India has reportedly agreed to pay Tehran in gold for the oil it buys, in a move aimed at protecting Delhi from US-sanctions targeting countries who trade with Iran. China, another buyer of Iranian oil, may follow Delhi’s lead.

The report, by the Israeli-based news website DEBKAfile, states that Iran and India are negotiating backup alternatives with China and Russia, should the US and EU find a way to block the gold payment mechanism.

Delhi’s move is seen as surprising, as earlier India and Iran said they would switch to yen and rupees. China, another major importer of Iranian oil, may follow Delhi’s lead, the report adds.

India and China need to switch from the dollar in bilateral trade, since the US and EU have issued unilateral sanctions against the Iranian oil industry and financial institutions. The sanctions would ban any bank involved in oil trade with Iran from dealing with American and European counterparts.

Both India and China, two major buyers of Iranian oil accounting for 22 and 13 percent of its total export respectively, have refused to join such sanctions. This means they have to establish a reliable way of paying for crude, independently of the parts of the global financial system controlled by New York and London.

Delhi’s current plan is to effect payments through two state-owned banks, India’s UCO Bank and Turkey’s Halk Bankasi, Turkey being another country refusing to join the sanction spree.

The US issued sanctions against Iran in December, aiming to put pressure on the Islamic Republic and make its controversial nuclear program more transparent. The EU joined the initiative on Monday, banning new oil contracts with Iran, but allowing current ones to be fulfilled.

Australia on Tuesday became the latest country to voice plans for such an embargo, although the move would be more symbolic than practical, considering the country’s small share in Iran’s oil export.

Japan and South Korea, two other major buyers of Iranian crude, are in talks with Washington over the issue, although both Seoul and Tokyo are worried that stopping their imports could hurt their economies.

Iran, which is highly dependent on its sales of oil, is reacting to the sanction campaign nervously. Tehran says it will not yield to pressure, and threatens to block the Strait of Hormuz, a key oil tanker route in the Persian Gulf.

­German political analyst Christoph R. Horstel told RT that amid the economic crisis the embargo on Iranian oil imports could backfire on the EU, while Iran “will do quite well even under the embargo.”

“All the present faithful customers to Iran oil are set to continue buying this oil, and they will find a way, rest assured,” he said. “This is the signal I get from Tehran.”

“I was personally present when the deputy economics minister of Iran was talking to a foreign society in Berlin,” he added. “And the gentleman said very openly to the shocked audience ‘OK. You don’t want to buy our goods. Well, the Chinese do.”

http://rt.com/news/iran-india-gold-oil-543/

Russia Today
24 January, 2012

Violent clashes between supporters of the new and old regimes have been seen in cities across Libya. The successful regrouping and attacks by former regime loyalists has raised fears that another civil war might take place in the country.

­Fighters loyal to late Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi have clashed with revolutionary forces in the former regime stronghold of Bani Walid on Monday, taking control of the city in the process. At least five NTC troops were killed and 30 others injured in the violence.

There is a lot of disquiet in every corner of Libya at the moment, as investigative journalist Simon Assaf told RT.

“The thing we have to remember about the Gaddafi regime or any kind of regime is that it isn’t simply about the people at the top,” Simon Assaf explained. “There are people, the supporters on the ground, low and mid-level officials and so on. And I think quite a few of them would have been thrown to the winds after the death [of Gaddafi].”

Assaf believes that this group, “the new victims” of the revolution, represents a “certain section of population that now wants to find its voice.”

“The NTC forces when they marched into Bani Walid would have had to face the local population,” he said. “Now it is the local population that seems to have thrown them out.”

There is extreme discontent with what some people are describing as the “hijacked revolution,” Assaf says. And the process of hijacking was very “messy and brutal,” leaving many people seeking revenge, he added.

“There was the total annihilation of Sirte, the attacks on areas considered to be loyal to the old regime,” Assaf explained. “So I think there is no question that there are many people who died under NATO bombs. I think there are quite a lot of acts of revenge taking place.”

“The thing about revolutions is that they are not simply passive events,” he concluded. “There is a whole awakening of the population in the Middle East.”

­Ali Alkasih, an eyewitness to NATO’s campaign in Libya told RT that life in Libya was better under Muammar Gaddafi’s regime but now the country is facing more corruption and violence against its own citizens.

“We didn’t have these thugs in Libya. We didn’t have the killings taking place now in Libya. We didn’t have interference – we were an independent country.”

http://rt.com/news/libya-revolution-clashes-discontent-603/

Russia Today
24 January, 2012

Britain could send reinforcements to defend the sensitive Strait of Hormuz against a possible blockade by Iran.

On Sunday, the Royal Navy dispatched HMS Argyll to a flotilla of mostly American warships in the Gulf region. These have been gathering ever since the tension between Iran and the West started to bubble last year.

The move sends “a clear signal” to Tehran, Defence Secretary Philip Hammond said on Tuesday, adding that “the UK has a contingent capability to reinforce that presence, should at any time it be considered necessary to do so.”

The flotilla passed within a few kilometers of the Iranian coast.

Besides the HMS Argyll, it includes two destroyers and a guided missile cruiser from the US Navy, the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier, and a French warship. The US, France, and UK maintain a permanent military presence in the Persian Gulf.

Another US aircraft carrier, the Carl Vinson, has already been in the region for several months. Each of the carriers is equipped with more aircraft than Iran has in commission.­

The Strait of Hormuz has been high in the headlines lately. Iran threatens to block the naval route, through which some 35 per cent of global oil tanker traffic passes, in response to an embargo on Iranian oil imposed by the US and the EU.

The US has said it will use military force to lift the blockade, should Iran choose to impose one. Tehran recently held some of the biggest naval exercises in the region in years, unnerving some Gulf nations. Earlier this month, Iran announced it would also hold drills in the Strait of Hormuz in February.

‘Iran will survive’

Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich, an independent researcher and writer, believes that Iran will eventually survive the pressure coming from the West.

She insists that there has been a covert war against Iran for decades. “America and Israel have unleashed terrorists in Iran – they’ve been taking out people, they’ve been killing them. And sanctions are warfare.”

“But Iran has become very well experienced in being able to fight off these wars and these covert actions,” she states. “America, Israel and the Western allies are only harming themselves.”

Sepahpour-Ulrich also argues that the pressure on Iran has nothing to do with the country’s nuclear program. “America is pushing for regime change in Iran. It is important to Washington to take out the regime in Iran and install a puppet that would side with the American power structure and American ambitions in the region.”

Russia Today
24 January, 2012

The Arab League is intensifying its diplomatic attack on Syria, recalling observers and preparing to address the UN Security Council on the violence, after Damascus rejected the League’s proposal urging President Assad to step down.

­The Persian Gulf countries have now called on the Security Council to apply additional pressure to induce Syria to accept the plan.

The proposal envisages the creation of a unity government within two months. The new government’s aim would be preparing special parliamentary and presidential elections in Syria, to be held under Arab and international supervision.

The Gulf countries are also following the example of Saudi Arabia and pulling their observers from Syria, a move seen as another blow to Damascus, since the mission had just been extended for at least another month.

It is believed this decision was made after Damascus rejected the Arab League’s plan.

Gulf Arabs are not alone in their crusade against Damascus. British Foreign Secretary William Hague has suggested a road map to get a UN resolution on Syria, similar to the one once made out for Libya, by establishing a no-fly zone over the country.

He said the Arab League observers must make the UN Security Council members aware of the “real” state of things in Syria.

Hague has also called on the Arab League to push Russia and China to support a resolution on Syria in the Security Council. According to the British FM, a UN resolution must be adopted in such a way that it would help to “save people’s lives”.

In October, Russia and China vetoed the resolution on Syria. Moscow stressed that it would never support any UN resolution that intends to settle the Syrian crisis by foreign force.

The situation around Syria has been aggravated even further as on Monday the EU imposed fresh sanctions on Damascus, following the refusal of President Bashar Assad to step down.

­Arab League prepares invasion?

At a press-conference on Tuesday, Syria’s Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem accused unspecified Arab states of joining the conspiracy against his country and of a “blatant” interference in Syria’s internal affairs.

Walid al-Muallem slammed the Arab League’s hypocrisy, pointing out that instead of getting familiar with the results obtained by its observers in Syria, the organization takes a political decision to demand President Bashar Assad’s resignation. This step would undoubtedly endanger Syria’s sovereignty and Damascus certainly cannot accept such a proposal.

“A blind man cannot discourse about colors,” al-Muallem said, “They want to defy the future of Syria without considering the opinion of the Syrians.”

The Syrian FM said that the Arab League is simply trying to internationalize the Syrian question, thus preparing the ground for international interference in the sovereign affairs of his country.

Walid al-Muallem expressed confidence that Russia would never agree to foreign intervention in Syria.

“Our relations with Russia have deep roots,” the minister announced at the press-conference in Damascus. “Russia cannot welcome foreign intervention in Syria. That is too much.”

Walid al-Muallem stressed that Syria has fulfilled all of its obligations towards the Arab League, particularly underlining that the report of the observers confirms statements by Damascus that armed militants, not peaceful protesters, are acting throughout Syria and against its authorities.

The Syrian FM emphasized that it is a duty of the government in Damascus to deal with the militants seeding violence in Syrian provinces.

Syria has long stressed that the 10-month uprising in the country has never been that of peaceful protesters seeking change, but a foreign conspiracy, channeling money, arms and militants to undermine Syrian sovereignty and organize a regime change in the country.

http://rt.com/news/syria-arab-league-pressure-579/

Russia Today
24 January, 2012

As cyberspace turns its attention to the SOPA and PIPA bills in the US, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, or ACTA, has been quietly signed or ratified by most of the developed world and is arguably the biggest threat to Internet freedom yet.

­ACTA has – officially – been in the works since 2008, and was signed by the US, Australia, Canada, Japan, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore and South Korea in 2011. All negotiations were held behind closed doors, and it is mostly thanks to Internet hacktivist groups like Anonymous that news of the potential damage ACTA could cause has spread.

Most recently, Anonymous turned their attention to Poland, where officials announced that they will sign the controversial treaty on January 26. A number of government website attacks has left them paralyzed for two days, and several Polish websites have since announced they will go dark in protest at the treaty, echoing recent unprecedented actions by Wikipedia, Redditt, BoingBoing and many others.

However, Polish officials have said they will sign the agreement as planned. Government minister Michal Boni said “The ACTA agreement in no way changes Polish laws or the rights of Internet users and Internet usage,” after a meeting with Prime Minister Donald Tusk. The irony of that statement is that ACTA will do exactly that. It will surpass the sovereign laws of participating nations, especially in the matter of ISP monitoring.

ACTA’s reach is far more global, with countries like the US, Switzerland, Japan and all European Union members in its grasp. It is allegedly being introduced “to create new legal standards of intellectual property enforcement, as well as increased international cooperation, an example of which would be an increase in information sharing between signatory countries’ law enforcement agencies.” But in reality, the measures that have been worked on by behind-the-scenes politicians and media industry moguls are just shy of draconian.

Under this new treaty, Internet Service Providers will police all data passing through them, making them legally responsible for what their users do online. And should you do something considered “breach of copyright” like, for instance, getting a tattoo of a brand logo, taking a photo and posting it somewhere, you may be disconnected from the Internet, fined or even jailed.

This, of course, threatens the entire founding idea of the Internet – the free sharing of information. But ACTA doesn’t stop there. It goes beyond the Internet, bearing down on generic drugs and food patents. If passed, ACTA will enforce a global standard for seed patenting, which would wipe out independent, local farmers and make the world completely dependent on the patent owners (read “big corporations”) for supplies.

The agreement states that it must be signed and ratified by 2013, but the seemingly late deadline is no cause for celebration. And if the secrecy surrounding this latest censor tool continues to hold, it may be put into effect without anyone noticing.

http://rt.com/news/acta-internet-censor-treaty-591/print/

Pyotr ISKENDEROV
Strategic Culture Foundation
25.01.2012

The EU debates over slapping an oil embargo on Iran and upping the pressure on Syria’s Bashar Assad seem to have diverted the spotlight from the decision taken last week by the European Commission to open a visa liberalization dialog with the self-proclaimed republic of Kosovo in order «to eventually lift the visa obligation for citizens of Kosovo». European Commissioner for Home Affairs Cecilia Malmström was quoted in a January 19 press release as saying: «Our commitment to visa liberalisation for the citizens of Kosovo is real, and I am very pleased that we can now start making concrete progress towards this goal». According to the same release, she also stressed following a round of talks with Kosovo premier H. Thaci in Pristina that «Whether and how soon citizens obtain the privilege of visa-free travel will nevertheless depend entirely on the Government of Kosovo’s continuing efforts to implement reforms in the rule of law area and on concrete progress made on the ground».

Clearly, the list of criteria Kosovo needs to meet to earn the privilege of visa-free travel reflects Brussels’ wider vision for the future of the province and of Pristina’s relations vis-a-vis Belgrade. Specifically, Thaci’s government is advised to launch biometric Kosovo passports and, which is particularly important in the context of the array of problems surrounding the self-proclaimed Kosovo independence, to implement substantial reforms in key areas such as border management. It should be borne in mind that the July, 2011 clashes between the Kosovo Serbs and the international forces which propped up Pristina were sparked by the attempts made by the latter to tighten the Kosovo «border management». The escalation made it impossible for the talks between Belgrade and Pristina to proceed as planned and provided Germany, Austria, and their EU peers with a pretext for putting the Serbian EU admission bid on hold. The decision unveiled on January 19 sends Pristina an easily readable message that it should at any cost secure a grip on the border between Kosovo and the rest of Serbia.

Cecilia Malmström and the whole European Commission are likely aware of the risks generated under the current circumstances by the visa liberalization initiative and even more so by such signals being addressed to Pristina. In fact, over the past months Mrs. Malmström has been preoccupied with the EU migration problems which echoed with a rise of radicalism across Europe and visibly contributed to the outbreak of its current crisis. While the EU headaches related to migration stem from the specific character of its own legislation, Brussels’ intended involvement with Kosovo over the travel regime at the peak of the standoff between the province and Belgrade is a policy undisguisedly provoking a yet deeper conflict between Serbs and Albanians. The impression is that certain camps in Brussels and Washington hope to cite the refueled conflict as justification for irreversibly suppressing the Serb resistance in Kosovo and for leaving Belgrade completely shut out of decision-making in the affairs concerning the province.

Cecilia Malmström paid an official visit to Kosovo on January 19-20 to officially announce the travel liberalization talks and promised Tachi to remove a maximal number of obstacles to lifting the visa requirements. The news predictably popped up among the prime headlines of the Kosovo Albanian media which, with a reference to Mrs. Malmström, indicated that the corresponding liberalization roadmap might see the light of day as early as this spring.

The past couple of years saw Brussels scrap the visa requirements for the citizens of all non-EU Balkan countries, the duo of Albania plus Bosnia and Herzegovina being the last to get the perk in November, 2010. However, up to date the favor has been dispensed to republics uniformly recognized by all EU member-countries, which is not the case with Kosovo. By offering the regime to Pristina, the EU effectively violated the June 10, 1999 UN Security Council Resolution 1244 and brushed off several other internationally endorsed documents which explicitly denied Kosovo the independent status. It was still stated in a EU report released in November, 2008, half a year after the unilateral declaration of independence by Kosovo, that the legal framework for the province was set by UN Security Council Resolution 1244. Things have changed since the time, and at present – staunchly shelving Serbia’s admission request – the EU pushes for the integration of Kosovo in the status of an independent country. European Parliament Rapporteur for Serbia Jelko Kacin dropped a hint a few days ago that Belgrade should spare no effort to normalize its relations with Pristina by March 1, the date the EU Council is due to convene on the summit level. At the moment, this ultimatum is what the roadmap fed to Serbia by the EU actually boils down to.

http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2012/01/25/eu-pushes-for-serbia-without-kosovo-without-visa-obligations.html

Wayne MADSEN
Strategic Culture Foundation
25.01.2012

The right-wing government of Israel has embarked on a novel foreign policy, one that seeks to develop close relations with sub-national state and provincial governments, thus by-passing national governments and avoiding the increasing hostility of national foreign ministries and local grass roots movements to Israel’s policies toward the Palestinians.

The establishment of state-to-state relations between Israel and such sub-national governments as American states, Canadian provinces, and even Native American tribal nations has increased under the ultra-nationalist Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman. The new aggressive policy by Israel to seek allies at sub-national levels results in internal pressure on national governments to take a less critical approach to Israeli policies on the West Bank and Gaza.

Israel has developed a number of “formal partnership agreements” with American states. These agreements cover a number of areas, including economic and business relations, cultural ties, exchange trips by American state and Israeli government officials, technology exchange and research, and education. With some local jurisdictions and university and college campuses advancing Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) initiatives against Israel, the Israeli government is confident that any attempts to take such proposals to the state level will be stopped dead in their tracks.

Virginia is one example of a state that has established a number of formal agreements with Israel. A number of joint operations have been created, including the Virginia Israel Advisory Board (VIAB), the Virginia Israel Partnership – created by Governor George Allen in 1995, and the Virginia Israel Technology Alliance. In September 2008, Virginia and Israel established a formal government-to-government partnership agreement when Governor Tim Kaine and Israeli ambassador Sallai Meridor signed a formal research and development agreement between the Commonwealth of Virginia and the State of Israel. The agreement, like many between Israel and the states, includes military and security technology exchange. The important factor is that the agreement was signed between Richmond and Jerusalem, by-passing the U.S. Department of State, the federal department that has overall authority over the foreign relations of the United States and other nations.

Defense links between the United States and foreign nations are under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Defense. In 2003, Maryland Governor Robert Ehrlich and the Israeli government signed the Maryland-Israel Partnership in Homeland Security, the first of its kind among America’s states.

Formal agreements have been established between Israel and Alabama, California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas (Governor Rick Perry received the “Defender of Jerusalem” and “Friend of Zion” awards from Israel), Virginia, and Wisconsin. Most of the state agreements with Israel have been concluded over the past five years.

Some state legislatures have passed joint Senate-House/General Assembly resolutions supporting a continued strong relationship between the United States and Israel, which also by-pass the State Department’s responsibilities to sign agreements with foreign nations. On March 18, 2011, one such resolution, which called for “continued support” by the Colorado legislature for a strong relationship between the United States and Israel, was enacted by the Colorado Senate and General Assembly.

Even more peculiar is Israel’s government-to-government agreements with Native American tribes, which enjoy varying degrees of sovereignty from the U.S. federal government. Israel has established close links to the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana. The Coushatta Tribe was the first U.S. tribe to recognize the State of Israel and officially welcome an Israeli delegation to the reservation. Israeli companies have staked a claim in the 700-acre Coushatta reservation in Louisiana. In 2008, the Coushatta Tribe issued an “Affirmation of Friendship” with Israel, recognizing May 14, the Israeli date of independence, as a Coushatta national holiday. The Israeli Consulate General in Houston maintains contact with the tribe and it has sought to expand trade and agricultural links between the Coushattas and Israel.

In 2001, the Coushatta Tribe retained the lobbying services of Republican Party lobbyist and noted Israel supporter Jack Abramoff. Abramoff squeezed money out of the tribe for himself and the Republicans by double-crossing the Coushattas into believing they would be spared from competing with native gambling casinos nearby in Texas if they donated money to anti-gambling GOP Christian conservatives.

One of the factors, in addition to casino interests, that are behind Israel’s interest in establishing state-to-state relations with U.S. tribes may be the application of pressure on the United States dissuading Washington’s recognition of a Palestinian state. Israel may believe that if the United States moves to formally recognize Palestine as independent, it can take similar steps toward the Native Tribal Nations of the United States.

By establishing relations with state governments, Israel is also free to involve itself in state-level politics. On January 13, the publisher of the Atlanta Jewish Times, Andrew Adler, wrote a column in which he postulated that Israel’s Mossad might have to consider assassinating the President of the United States if Iran acquired a nuclear weapon and the U.S. president failed to take military action against Iran. Adler wrote that it may be necessary for Israel to “give the go-ahead for U.S.-based Mossad agents to take out a president deemed unfriendly to Israel in order for the current vice president to take his place, and forcefully dictate that the United States policy includes its helping the Jewish state obliterate its enemies.”

“Lone nut!” and “crazed lunatic!” proclaimed America’s Jewish political pressure groups about Adler’s column. However, Adler’s newspaper has close ties with Israel’s Consulate General in Atlanta and Jewish Republican Party officials in the state of Georgia. On December 30, 2011, the Atlanta Jewish Times featured a photograph of one of Adler’s chief columnists, Chuck Berk, who is also co-chair of Atlanta’s Republican Jewish Coalition, with Israeli Consul General in Atlanta Opher Aviran, Georgia Governor Nathan Deal, and a few Georgia state senators. Shortly after his meeting with Deal and the Atlanta Jewish paper’s columnist, Aviran traveled from Atlanta to Jackson, Mississippi to be one of the very few foreign officials to attend the inauguration of Mississippi’s new Republican governor, Phil Bryant.

The threat by the Atlanta Jewish publisher coincided with a decision by a Georgia state administrative court judge in Atlanta named Michael M. Malihi to dismiss a motion brought by lawyers representing Obama to toss out a complaint to keep Obama’s name off the Georgia presidential ballot on the grounds that Obama’s Hawaii birth certificate is invalid and fails to establish his natural born U.S. citizenship status. One of the plaintiff attorneys in the case is Orly Taitz, a Moldavian SSR-born Israeli-American, who has sought to disprove Obama’s eligibility to serve as president and who has supported the goals of Israel’s right-wing government. Indeed, Atlanta has become every much a nexus for threats to President Obama as Dallas and New Orleans were for the safety of President John F. Kennedy. However, in Atlanta, there is a heavy Israeli and Jewish angle to radical anti-Obama activism.

Israel’s aggressive involvement in sub-national politics is also evident in Canada, Germany, Australia, the United Kingdom, Spain, and other nations. Quebec’s long drive for separation from Canada has been plagued by Israeli and Jewish Quebecker attempts to paint the Quebec independence movement as “anti-Semitic,” with Parti Quebecois (PQ) and Bloc Quebecois parliamentarians coming under attack for supporting Palestinians and Lebanese in attacks by Israel on their homelands. In 2000, PQ politician Yves Michaud cited Israeli involvement in Quebec’s push for independence by declaring B’nai Brith Canada the “enemy of Quebec nationalists and a phalanx of the Israeli government.”

As with American states, Israel has established direct ties with such Canadian provinces as Nova Scotia, Ontario, and Alberta.

Similar interference by pro-Israeli interests is being seen in Scotland’s current attempt to break free of the United Kingdom. Israel has joint ventures with Spain’s Basque Land (Euskadi) and Catalonia, Germany’s Bavaria, and Australia’s New South Wales and Queensland. In all the aforementioned states, the number one priority has been to derail BDS movements and ensure that local political leaders toe the pro-Israel line.

http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2012/01/25/israel-by-pass-foreign-policy.html

Boris DOLGOV
Strategic Culture Foundation
24.01.2012

The current situation in Syria remains one of the most important components of the Middle Eastern and international policies. Using Syria’s domestic crisis and pursuing their own goals NATO’s leading states, Israel, Turkey and the monarchies of the Persian Gulf are trying to undermine the Syrian regime.

Since the beginning of the crisis in Syria I have made two trips to that country as a member of international delegations in August 2011 and in January 2012. If we watch the dynamics of situation’s development over that period on the one hand we can state intensification of terrorist groups in Syria and on the other hand we see a broader people’s support of President Bashar Assad and a clear demarcation of political forces’ positions.

In the last two months Syria has seen a number of terrorist attacks. The terrorist attacked Syrian servicemen and military facilities, law enforcement agencies institutions, blasts on oil pipelines, railroads, murders and taking of hostage among peaceful citizens (In the city of Homs insurgents killed five well known scientists), arson of schools and killing of teachers (since March 2011, 900 schools have been set on fire and 30 teachers have been killed).

Terrorist attacks in Damascus became one of the bloodiest. Two of them were carried out on December 23, 2011 when cars loaded with explosives went off in front of the buildings of state security service killing 44 and injured about 150 people. On January 6, 2012 on a busy street a suicide bomber attack killed 26 and wounded 60. There were officers of the law enforcement agencies among the victims but most of the victims were occasional by-passers.

In January 2012, Damascus has a more severe look in comparison with summer of 2011. Security officers check passports on the way to the airport, asking people what country they are from. Entrances of many state institutions are protected with concrete blocks. There are check points with sand bags near the police stations which are protected by soldiers in bullet proof vests. Lifting gates which close entrances to some of the streets are also by guarded by soldiers and young people with machine guns – these are volunteers from pro-governmental youth movements. But everyday life has not drastically changed. There are no servicemen, armed vehicles or document checks in the city. Damascus is still a busy city, with no vacant seats in internet cafes and on weekends streets are crowded with family couples and young people.

After terrorist attacks in Damascus demonstrations with slogans supporting Bashar Assad and condemning terrorists were held everyday. Similar demonstrations were organized in other large cities such as Aleppo, Homs, Hama, Daraa, Deir az Zor. These demonstrations were covered by the Syrian TV. During our stay in Syria we could move around the city freely and speak with people as we liked but we did not see any single anti-governmental rally. Most of the rallies’ participants were young people.

The most massive rally which gathered tens thousands of people was held on January 1 in the center of Damascus. At that rally Bashar Assad addressed to the nation starting his speech with the words: “Brothers and sisters!” He was speaking about a thousands year long history, the need to fight terrorism and the support terrorists receive from abroad. Assad’s speech was received with real enthusiasm and there were no signs that this reaction had been staged.

The whole square (tens thousands of people) shouted a popular slogan “Allah, Syria, Bashar!” (“Allah, Syria va Bashar bas!”). On January 8, in the memory of victims of terrorist attacks in Damascus a commemoration ceremony was held in St. Cross Cathedral in Damascus. The Mufti of Syria Ahmad Badr Al-Din Hassoun, the metropolitan of the Syrian Orthodox Church and the prior of the Catholic monastery spoke at the ceremony. In their speeches they condemned “the killers and those who put weapons in their hands and sent them to Syria”. The tragedy of the mufti of Syria, whose son was killed by the members of the Islamist terrorist group after the mufti had refused to act on the side of the foreign opposition, which goal was to overthrow Bashar Assad, is a telling example in itself.

After the adoption of a new law on political parties an active process of their creation has been underway in Syria. Although formally the constitution envisaged a multiparty system and seven parties were represented in the parliament, in compliance with clause 8 the leading role belonged to the ruling Baath party. Currently there is a wide discussion in Syria about this clause. An official with the Syrian Foreign Ministry told us that in the new constitution (on which the national referendum would be held in February), this clause would be abolished if most of the public and political forces spoke for it.

In his address to the nation Bashar Assad said that the new constitution would be approved in March 2012. The parliamentary elections are to be held in May-June 2012. Along with the law on political parties new laws on general elections, local administration and mass media were adopted. In compliance with the new law in December 2011 elections to the local governments were held. But because of the threat of terrorist attacks the turnout was only 42%, which was confirmed by the Baath officials. Nevertheless, the local administrations were elected and began to work. Under the recently adopted law new mass media are being formed in addition to the current 20 TV channels, 15 radio stations and 30 newspapers.

At present there are three main trends in the Syrian patriotic opposition – democratic, liberal and left, which is mainly a communist one. The Syrian Social Nationalist Party is the most influential party among the democratic forces. It is also the oldest party which was established in 1932. As Iliah Saman, a member of the political bureau of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party said, the party’s program is more conservative in comparison with the Baath’s program. Nevertheless there are no differences of principle between the two parties. According to him, the policy of the US, France and England is the main destabilizing factor in Syria. He said that those countries were acting in the interests of Israel and had the goal to divide Syria into five state formations on the basis of religious and ethnical differences.

The liberal trend of the opposition is represented by the recently registered secular democratic social movement led by Nabil Feysal, one of the Syrian intellectuals, a writer and a translator. He is an outright opponent of the Islamic fundamentalism, supporter of the liberal democracy. His goal is to turn Syria into “Middle Eastern Denmark”.

The National Committee for the Unity of Syrian Communists is the most influential component of the left (communist) trend of the opposition within the country. Recently it has changed its name for the Popular Will Party which is headed by Qadri Jamil, a prominent Syrian economist and the professor at the Damascus University. He is the only representative of the opposition who entered the committee on the design of the new constitution. Jamil believes that the national dialogue and creation of the government of the national unity (which would include representatives of the patriotic opposition) is the only way out of the crisis. At the same time he thinks that it is necessary to remove all the politicians who are not interested in conduction of reforms from the government, to clean up the opposition from destructive factors and to suppress its radical members who tend to use violence.

The coordination committees are also significant political force which has contacts with the Popular Will Party. These committees on the one hand organize demonstrations demanding concrete reforms and better living conditions on the other hand act as self-defense units which armed people protect their districts from attacks of terrorist groups in particular from a so called Liberal Syrian Army. It should be noted that although in the beginning of protests in Syria, part of the population, including intellectuals shared the opposition discontent with the regime and supported demands on democratization now, after intensification of terrorist groups, they tend to support the regime and the reforms proposed by the government.

A telling example of terrorist crimes was the shelling of a quarter in Homs on January 11 which killed eight local residents. Giles Jacquier, a reporter with France-2 TV, became one more victim of the attack. We spoke with Jacquier shortly before his tragic death and he was convinced that people’s protests were suppressed by the authoritarian regime in Syria. He was looking for the opposition everywhere trying to make a report. On failing to find it in Damascus he moved with a group of Dutch and Swiss colleagues to Homs. But in Homs he also met people who were supporting Bashar Assad and demanding to protect them from terrorists. A group of local residents and Giles Jacquier who happened to be near came under a grenade thrower fire, which was a common thing in that district. Commenting the tragic death of the French reporter Mother Agnes Mariam, who is the prior of the St James Catholic Cathedral in Damascus, said that there is no protesting opposition in Syria but only bandits who are killing people.

Many people we contacted in Syria including independent foreign reporters told us about the information war against Syria. According to them, Qatari channel Al Jazeera, for example, in order to broadcast a report on mass anti-governmental rallies in Syria made a fake footage with the help of computer editing using dozens of atmosphere players and decoration of Syrian streets, a kind of “Hollywood village”.

As for the Syrian opposition abroad, its political part is represented by the Syrian National council with the headquarters in Istanbul. It is headed by Burhan Ghalioun, a Syrian-French political scientist at the Sorbonne University in Paris. It is quite a heterogeneous formation which comprises groups with different goals. They represent the Muslim Brotherhood and other Sunnite organizations, Kurdish separatists, Liberal-Democratic dissidents who usually reside in Europe and in the US.

The armed opposition which conducted terrorist attacks in Syria is represented by a number of groups from a military wing of the Muslim Brotherhood to the Libyan radical Islamists and Al Qaeda. According to the information we receive from our Syrian colleagues there are training camps for insurgents in Lebanon and Turkey. The officers of security services of NATO, Turkey and some Arab states are in charge for the training and armament of the insurgents, while the monarchies of the Persian Gulf provide the financing.

The future development of the situation in Syria depends in many ways on the ability of the ruling regime to consolidate public forces and conduct the announced reforms. Other priorities are the liquidation of terrorist groups and stabilization of the domestic situation. In its turn this issue is directly linked to the development of the global policies and will depend on the activities of the leading countries of NATO, Turkey, the Arab League (which sent its monitors to Syria) Russia and China.

As for Russia, it firmly declares that repetition of the “Libyan scenario” in Syria is inadmissible.

http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2012/01/24/on-current-situation-in-syria.html

Alexander MEZYAEV
Strategic Culture Foundation
23.01.2012

On January 12 a UN Security Council session was devoted to Africa’s role in crisis management on its soil. There was a specific feature important enough to be noticed – it was not South Africa’s permanent representative who chaired it (South Africa is performing the duties of the Council’s chairman in January) but president of the country Jacob Zuma, who came especially to attend the event. Formally the session was limited by the issue of strengthening Africa’s role in Somalia but WHAT was said and HOW leaves no place to doubt: the African Union decided to move to a qualitatively new stage of its activities…

An attempt of African states to take the management of their own crisis into their hands is well understood –Africa accounts for over 70% of the UN Security Council agenda. Only three states represent the continent in the Council (South Africa, Togo and Morocco). Morocco’s relation to the continent is limited by geographic factor. No political link unites it with Africa, the country is not a member of neither the African Union, nor the Organization of African Unity (OAU). The African region is the largest continent from point of view of number of states (54) but it has no permanent Security Council representation.

Jacob Zuma directly called for the UN reform, emphasizing the need to legitimize the Security Council. This is a harsh but just way to put it. The disproportional representation is not the only problem here, it’s a long time since the Security Council has stopped to fulfill its major function – to maintain international peace and security. Though the members are to act in the interests of the whole international community, the picture is quite different in practice. One gets a big surprise once acquainted with the UN Security Council’s agenda. Until now the complaints launched by Libya in 1983, 1984, 1986, 1989, a complaint launched by Sudan even in 1958 as well as other numerous complaints and requests for UN aid launched by African states are on the shelf. (In a mysterious way the UN Security Council reports have stopped to include the list of issues submitted for the Council’s consideration lately, It’s impossible to find the list on the Security Council’s official website. Though it’s not so hard to understand what’s behind it). A question may arise why all these appeals have been pigeonholed? One should refer to the article 12 of the UN Charter that says the General Assembly cannot tackle the issues under the consideration by the Security Council. Thus the full representation body is destitute of a right to make decisions on the issues «under the consideration», even if they’re not really put up for discussion. By the way the reform proposals under consideration at present include the creation of regional security councils. It’s a result of the Security Council’s refusal to be impartial and serve the interests of all members of international community.

Now at last the African Union decided to raise the question of gradual transfer of the crisis management into its own hands. The Libyan situation and the UN participation in its «management» gave rise to it. Jacob Zuma stressed the fact that a political road map to solve the Libyan crisis was elaborated by the African Union last year. The plan was totally ignored in favor of NATO air strikes. Now the president said directly that the NATO operation in Libya was a preventive strike against the African Union’s initiative. In fact the UN Security Council prevented peaceful settlement in Libya. Going back to the circumstances the UN Security Council’s resolution N 1973 was adopted in, one could see it was put up for vote straight after the resolution N 1970. A question pops up – why all this haste? Especially taking into account the fact that the previous resolution hadn’t been carried out? The matter is – it’s exactly this time the African Union’s peaceful initiative was put forward. The one worked out with active participation of South Africa’s president Jacob Zuma.

The idea that it was Somalia that gave impetus to the African Union’s decision (headed by South Africa) to start gradual withdrawal from the UN Security Council’s guardianship has solid substantiation. The situation in Somalia is not only a result of a unique special operation to destroy the state (such examples are numerous), but rather a long term destruction of statehood as such leaving no hope for restoration. The reconstruction efforts in Somalia have been in vain for twenty years now. And there are no visible reasons why. More over the causes for instability, that are most typical for African states, are absent there. Like multiethnic population, for instance. Unlike other Black continent states, Somalia is a mono ethnical country, the titular nation – the Somali, makes up almost 90% of the population. True, there is a strongly rooted clan system, but it doesn’t hamper statehood restoration (it was not the division along clan lines that caused the Somalia’s collapse). The collapse of Somalia is a special case of unique methods used and unique results received. It’s not excluded Somalia was a test ground for Libya’s destruction.

Russia extended support to South Africa on many issues with some exclusions. Vitaly Churkin, the Permanent Representative of Russia to the United Nations, said Russia supported African organizations efforts to maintain peace on the continent. But he also stressed the African Union’s endeavors were to be supported by the Security Council’s authority. Actually the words about the authority may have a rather broad meaning.

The new and old world order made the African continent suffer, perhaps even more than others. Africa has always been an object, not a subject of international law. It still is. A short period (since 1960s) when the situation looked to be turning for better, only emphasizes the fact the many centuries history restarted in the 1990s is still very much a reality. But what started to take place after the existing world order destruction process was launched is intolerable. Africa has become a test ground for all kinds of «international» operations, while a number of victims has no significance. The UN participation in African crises management has been gradually becoming crises maintenance or even fueling. That’s why the aspiration of Africa and the African Union to get rid of such «guardianship» is naturally determined and lawful. The process has just started and its direction is clear to see.

http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2012/01/23/africa-and-un-attempt-to-get-rid-of-new-world-order-chains.html

By M K Bhadrakumar
Indian Punchline
January 24, 2012

Iran has spoken defiantly about the European Union decision to impose sanctions on oil purchase, but has left the door open for the upcoming negotiations with the “5+1″. In a judicious response, Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehman-Parast at his routine press briefing called it “psywar”. He said the move is “illogical and unfair” and “will not stop our nation from obtaining its rights. The European countries and those who are under American pressure should think about their own interests. Any country that deprives itself of Iran’s energy market will soon see that it has been replaced by others.”

The Foreign MInistry in Tehran in a statement warned EU countries that they will bear “bitter fruits” as a result of their move. It was a firm statement asserting that Iran intended to continue with its nuclear programme, which is its “right” under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, but stressed Iran’s willingness to be “more transparent”.

Tehran’s assessment seems to be that European opinion is badly divided on the Iran issue and many EU member countries fell in line with a consensus that was forced by the US, UK and France, which are acting under a mix of strong domestic public compulsions and a need to distract attention from the economic crisis in the west and the contradictions of the Arab Spring . British PM David Cameron, for instance, made a hurried trip to Riyadh last week canvassing for a multi-billion pound deal for sale of fighter aircraft, but apparently drew blank.

The Iranian statement asserted: ”The Iranian nation has many times proved that it would never yield to pressure and unjust moves aimed at forcing it to abandon its legitimate and legal rights, and will certainly through resistance within the framework of the fundamentals of justice and placing belief in international peace and stability, will not in future too yield to such methods and we remind the leaders of the western countries that any confrontationist move against the independence and advancement of independent countries would lead to further complication of the present-day global crises, and the aftermath of such thoughtless decisions and efforts aimed at building up tensions would lie on the shoulders of the European Union.”

In all likelihood, Iran has taken a stance taking into account the advice given by Moscow and Beijing where an Iranian envoy held discussions last week. Moscow has disapproved of EU’s move and sought restraint so that the negotiations with the “5+1″ could commence. China is yet to speak at the official level, but sometimes action speaks more convincingly than words.

Amidst all the brouhaha over the likely Chinese response —with western media insisting Beijing is about to dump Tehran and trek with the US and its Persian Gulf allies – vital statistics are coming in. China’s General Administration of Customs has let it be known in Beijing that China’s crude-oil imports from Iran last year actually were up 30% from 2010 to touch an all-time high level of 27.76 million metric tonnes. That is to say, China imported 557000 barrels of Iranian oil per day. And, this happened when in 2011 China’s overall crude imports were up by just 6.1%.

Iran’s light, sweet crude is hard to replace and its price shot up by 1.25 dollars to settle at 99.58 barrels on the New York Mercantile Exchange within hours of the EU decision. The Russian RT and Israeli Debka with links to the intelligence have gone to town reporting that India proposes to pay for Iranian oil in gold and that China may follow suit. This may be factually wrong but figuratively it is not lacking in substance.

Unlike Russia or Israel or Australia, which can afford to view the paradigm as the stuff of humor — actually, Russia may even make a quick buck if oil prices jump due to an Iran crisis — this is a dead serious affair for India or China (or Turkey). India uses the light Iranian crude for making fertilisers, which are sold at subsidised price to the farmers.

At the end of the day, this is not going to be a simple matter of the west “punishing” Iran. As a Xinhua commentary summed up, sanctions would only further the animosity between Tehran and the West, making a negotiated solution “even less likely” and pushing up crude oil prices; it could “exacerbate concerns among global oil investors about possible tight supply, leading to surging prices, which will push up global inflation and deal a blow to the fragile global economic recovery. As a result, both the developed world and the emerging economies will feel pressure.”

Indeed, who is going to get hurt most in this shadow-boxing is also far from clear.

http://blogs.rediff.com/mkbhadrakumar/2012/01/24/iran-calmly-reacts-to-eus-oil-sanctions/