Stephen Lendman

On April 14, the Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 2042. The UN News Centre headlined, "Syria: Security Council authorizes deployment of advance military observer team," saying:

The Security Council authorized sending "an advance team of up to 30 unarmed military observers to Syria to report on the implementation of a full cessation of armed violence, pending the deployment of a United Nations supervision mission tasked with monitoring the ceasefire."

While calling on all sides to end violence and guarantee the safety and free movement of observers, once again fingers pointed mainly the wrong way.

Reports suggested disagreement delayed passage for 24 hours. Russia argued for even-handed language. Its efforts fell short. More on that below.

An advance 30 member team was on standby for departure. A total force of up to 250 will join them. It's not clear who they'll be, where they'll be from, or who'll select them.

Key is having independent observers on the ground reporting honestly on what they see. Achieving it's a tall order, especially when official reports and scoundrel media distort and lie.

Washington wants the process manipulated its way. If pro-Western monitors are deployed, anti-Assad accusations will continue.

At best, a shaky truce holds. At issue is for how long. Insurgent-caused violence continues. Deaths and injuries follow. Expect greater eruptions ahead.

More »

Alexander Mezyaev

President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan. Al-Bashir is the first
sitting head of state the court has ordered arrested.

Not long ago the International Criminal Court (ICC) handed down a noteworthy ruling. Formally it was related to two African states – Malawi and Chad visited by president of Sudan Omar al-Bashir. Their fault was not so much receiving him but rather not putting him under arrest. The warrant was issued by the ICC back in 2009. According to the ICC Statute all states are to cooperate with the Court. A refusal to arrest president of Sudan Omar al-Bashir became a substantiation for making responsible the states that appear to have no relation to it. The decision exposes the real essence of the ICC as an instrument of global hegemony reflected in grandiloquent legal form. It has at least two reasons.

Let’s start with a few words concerning the first one. It lies on the surface. The gist of it is that the ICC tries to establish a system of total control over all states that are signatories to the Statute. Any state that doesn’t cooperate with the ICC is to be punished. As I see it, the ICC goes far beyond international law and even its own Statute. The matter is a demand to arrest a head of a neighboring state and “cooperation” with the ICC are not identical notions.

And at that, not all states refusing to cooperate with the Court are punished. Just a few days after Malawi and Chad were publicly flogged the president of Sudan visited Libya. The reaction was quite different. The Court did not take measures against Libya, moreover it pretended not to notice the event. The Libyan authorities had not been told to arrest al-Bashir before the visit and no steps against them were taken afterwards. So why this gap in attitudes towards different countries displayed by the International Criminal Court? The reason is that al-Bashir took an active part in the Gaggafi’s overthrow. And it raises a question, if the price for it wasn’t his own safety in relation to the ICC...

It’s noteworthy that some countries are allowed not to comply with the ICC decisions, for instance France. A few weeks ago Florance Hartmann, former spokesperson press-secretary for the International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia (ICTY), who is a citizen of France, received a seven years prison sentence from the Tribunal (for disclosing classified information related to the case of S. Milosevic). France refused to comply with the Court’s order. The French authorities said the obligation to cooperate with the Court encompasses only the cases where military criminals are involved. F. Hartmann had no relation to war crimes. The Tribunal was bashfully silent.

More »

Stephen Lendman

Israel systematically wages war on rule of law principles, truth, equity, justice, and other democratic values. Even Jews aren't safe. Anyone challenging Netanyahu's regime and earlier ones becomes vulnerable. Travelers beware. Israel criminalized entry earlier. Rogue officials are at it again.

At issue are so-called "flytilla" activists. Reports suggest about 1,500 planned West Bank trips. Their purpose is peacefully challenging Israel's illegal occupation and bonding with Palestinians they support.

Airflotilla2/Welcome to Palestine 2012 participants plan week-long solidarity actions. About two dozen civil society organizations invited them. So did Bethlehem's mayor.

Planned activities include planting trees, laying a kindergarten cornerstone, repairing damaged wells, peacefully contesting illegal settlement construction, and engaging Palestinians other ways. Their mission is peace and solidarity, not confrontation and violence.

At issue is how many actually will arrive. Israel's going all out to block them. Airlines agreed to go along, Air France, Lufthansa, and Easyjet among them.

Israel sent them lists of likely travelers. It directed reservations and issued tickets be cancelled. Airlines dutifully complied. Reasons affected travelers got are spurious. Some plan legal action in response.

More »

Wayne Madsen

Waiting for weapons in northern Syria (Photo: ANP)

There is one thing certain about U.S. Pentagon strategy: it’s hard to teach an old dog new tricks. And using an old trick from Operation Desert Storm, establishing a humanitarian, NATO-protected no-fly salient in northern Iraq’s Kurdish area, appears to be the same strategy envisioned for northern Syria. There is much in common between the U.S.-led NATO planning for a northern Syria occupation zone and the no-fly zone established in 1992 for Iraq.

Both NATO operations were and are intended to drive Arab Ba’ath Socialist regimes from power. In Iraq, the target was the Ba’ath Party headed by Saddam Hussein; in Syria, the target is, again, an Arab Ba’ath Party and the regime headed by Bashar Al Assad. In Iraq, a no-fly zone was established from the 36th parallel north to the Turkish border. If one were top draw that same boundary westward, it closely compares to the NATO-protected humanitarian zone being proposed for Syria. The NATO-protected northern Syria salient would encompass the cities of Aleppo and Idlib and the provinces of Idlib, Halab, Ar Raqqah, and Al Hasakah (the latter two where many Syrian Kurds live).

In northern Iraq, NATO protected a majority Kurdish population, allowing it to build up defensive and offensive paramilitary forces for the ultimate military operation that led, a little over a decade later, to the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. There is also a significant Kurdish minority in northeastern Syria that will be an important NATO asset for the ultimate offensive operations that will bring NATO and Syrian rebels to the walls of Damascus.

More »