Hintergrundinformationen über die Terrorbandenfinanzierungen in Syrien seitens: Katar, Saudi Arabien, USA, Groß Britannien, Frankreich, Türkei, …

Finanzmarkt- und Konzernmacht-Zeitalter der Plutokratie unterstützt von der Mediakratie in den Lobbykraturen der Geld-regiert-Regierungen in Europa, Innsbruck am 03.01.2017

Liebe® Blogleser_in,

Bewusstheit, Liebe und Friede sei mit uns allen und ein gesundes sinnerfülltes Leben wünsch ich ebenfalls.

Aus dieser Quelle zur weiteren Verbreitung entnommen: http://www.globalresearch.ca/saudi-arabia-qatar-and-the-struggle-for-influence-in-syria/5342223

Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the Struggle for Influence in Syria

 
sa-qatar

This week’s resignation of Ghassan Hitto, the so-called “Prime Minister in waiting” of the Syrian Opposition Coalition, coupled with the July 6thelection of Ahmed Assi al-Jarba to head the umbrella coalition of US-supported proxy groups attempting to topple the Assad government, has revealed further cracks in the edifice of the imperialist assault on Syria.

Qatar’s Man in the Middle

Ghassan Hitto, the Syrian expatriate and technocrat from Texas, was seen by most informed observers as the darling of the Muslim Brotherhood and Qatar.  As noted by AFP shortly after Hitto’s election:

Some coalition members described Hitto as a consensus candidate pleasing both the opposition’s Islamist and liberal factions.  But some of the 70-odd Coalition members withdrew from the consultations before the vote could take place, accusing opposition heavyweight Muslim Brotherhood of imposing Hitto as a candidate.

Indeed, the imposition of Hitto as the political face of the foreign-backed opposition was seen by many inside the opposition and around the world as a power-play by Qatar to control the direction of the conflict in Syria and establish Doha as the real center of power in a post-Assad Syria.

This connection between Hitto, the Muslim Brotherhood and Qatar was the source of much tension within the opposition.  The NY Times reported that:

[Hitto] faced several challenges: he was seen by some rebels and activists as out of touch with the country, and some members of the often-squabbling coalition complained that he was a favorite of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood and of its main foreign backer Qatar.  Many in the opposition say Qatar wields too much influence in the movement.

What became clear during the course of Hitto’s short tenure as the public face of the foreign-backed opposition was that he was less a political leader than a proxy of Qatar and the United States.  This despite what can only be called competition between its allies in Doha and Riyadh who at times collaborate and at other times compete for power and influence among the extremist jihadi elements throughout the Middle East and North Africa.  Essentially then, Hitto must be understood as a placeholder, a man whose responsibility was not to lead, but simply to act as a foothold for the al-Thani regime and the Muslim Brotherhood within the leadership of the opposition.  The goal was of course to have Hitto in place for the potential fall of Assad, so that Qatar could immediately secure its control over the country in a post-Assad scenario.

Saudis Reclaiming Dominant Role?

Hitto’s resignation places even more significance on last week’s election of Ahmed Assi al-Jarba as head of the Syrian Opposition Coalition.  Whereas Hitto was understood to be a proxy of Qatar, Jarba can be correctly characterized as a proxy of Saudi Arabia.  As McClatchy News explains:

Jarba is a chief of the Shammar tribe, one of the Arab world’s most powerful clans with members stretching from southern Turkey to Saudi Arabia…He was jailed early in the revolt against Assad…After being released from prison in August 2012, he fled to Saudi Arabia where his tribal connections put him into close touch with senior members of the Saudi intelligence services.

It should be noted that the innocuous-sounding phrase “close touch with senior members of Saudi intelligence” is a euphemism for Saudi agent, which is precisely what Jarba is.  Note the fact that, like Hitto, Jarba has already stated publicly his opposition to peace talks with the Assad government, thereby perpetuating the cycle of violence that benefits Riyadh and Doha and costs more innocent Syrians their lives.

Jarba has said that “Geneva in these circumstances is impossible.”  However, one must consider precisely which “circumstances” he was referring to.  Keen political observers who have been following events in Syria for some time understand the “circumstances” to be the continued military defeats of the foreign-backed rebels and jihadis by the forces of the Assad government.  Jarba and his Saudi handlers understand quite clearly that they must first achieve substantive military victories on the ground before they can even pay lip service to peace talks.

It is precisely this desperate need for tactical victories by the rebels that has driven Saudi Arabia to become even more involved in fomenting this war.  Using Jarba as their proxy, the Saudis have attempted to launch a new and perhaps even deadlier phase of the war against Syria.  In his first two days as head of the coalition, Jarba has already announced that the rebels will soon receive “a new shipment of sophisticated weapons from Saudi Arabia” as well as proposing a truce during Ramadan.

However, these announcements should be interpreted as cynical ploys designed to buy time for Saudi arms to reach their destination and for the rebels to train in their use.  Jarba said as much when he proclaimed to Reuters, “I will not rest until I procure the advanced weapons needed to hit back at Assad and his allies.  I give myself one month to achieve what I am intent to do.”  So, while proposing a one-month truce under the cover of religious piety in the observance of Ramadan, Jarba gives himself exactly that same one month window to procure advanced weapons.  The hypocrisy and duplicity needs no further explanation.

Saudi Arabia and Qatar have a complicated relationship, at times friendly and at other times acrimonious.  Throughout the course of the destabilization and subversion of Syria, the two countries have collaborated in the funding, arming, and importation of jihadi elements from throughout the Muslim world.  They have both been linked to intelligence agencies of the imperial Western powers while maintaining close contact with terror networks foreign and domestic.  As such, both countries have played the indispensable role of intermediary between these disparate forces.  However, now that the threat to their terrorist proxies in Syria is an existential one, and Assad victories become ever more decisive, it seems the bond between the monarchies is fraying.  The recent changes in the political leadership of the so-called opposition merely reflect this.

Eric Draitser is the founder of StopImperialism.com.  He is an independent geopolitical analyst based in New York City.  You can email him at ericdraitser@gmail.com.

 
 ——————————————————————————————————-
 
 Aus dieser Quelle zur weiteren Verbreitung entnommen:

http://www.mesop.de/syrian-opposition-forms-political-coalition-joint-military-council-following-foreign-pressure/

Syrian Opposition Forms Political Coalition, Joint Military Council Following Foreign Pressure

By: L.  BARKAN –  Introduction – MEMRI  – 14.1.2013 – The recent months have seen a reorganization of the Syrian opposition – both its political bodies and its military forces. Two new bodies have been formed: The National Coalition of Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces (henceforth: the National Coalition), and the Supreme Military Council, which is officially operating on behalf of the National Council.

This reorganization was carried out with the active involvement of Arab, Muslim and Western countries – chief among them Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey, the US, France and Britain – and was perceived as a necessary move towards reaching an agreed-upon political solution to the Syrian crisis that does not involve foreign military intervention. Taking a lesson from the case of Libya, where foreign military intervention resulted in anarchy and in ongoing internal conflict, and following intense criticism directed at the former main bodies of the Syrian opposition – namely the National Syrian Council (NSC) and the Free Syrian Army (FSA) – by elements inside and outside Syria, these Western and Muslim countries acted to establish a well-organized and united leadership for the political and military Syrian opposition. This was in an effort to lay a foundation for a secure and stable post-Assad Syria, free of internecine fighting and jihadi insurgency.

The main reasons for replacing the NSC was that it had failed to unite all the opposition forces in Syria and abroad and to represent all the forces fighting on the ground, that it was dominated by the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood (MB), and that it had not cooperated with the efforts of international envoy Lakhdar Brahimi to reach a political solution in Syria. The National Coalition, then, is meant to unite opposition, distance the MB from positions of power, and facilitate Brahimi’s mission. It has also been tasked with forming an interim government.

However, two months after the establishment of the National Coalition, it is difficult to identify any significant change in the political makeup or views of the opposition. The National Coalition does include a broader spectrum of opposition forces than does the NSC, but like the NSC it does not incorporate all the opposition elements. Moreover, the NSC itself has a large representation in it – about a third of the seats – and the MB has managed to gain an effective majority in it. In addition, like the NSC, it is imposing conditions that impede Brahimi’s mission (though it should be mentioned that Brahimi himself has drawn closer to the opposition’s views in the last few days). Nor has the National Coalition managed to form an interim government. Its main achievement so far lies in gaining the recognition of numerous countries and bodies as a representative of the Syrian people, or even as their sole representative. It has even dispatched representatives to some of these countries.

On the military level, the main problems facing the Syrian opposition up to this point were a lack of coordination among the forces in the field; lack of communication between the FSA high command in Turkey and the organization’s forces in Syria; and the infiltration of jihadi elements into the ranks of the opposition. These factors compromised the military efforts and were also a source of Western reluctance to fund and arm the Syrian rebels. The Supreme Military Council is meant to solve these problems by uniting the fighting forces into a well-organized and coordinated body, thereby preventing anarchy today and after Assad’s ouster, while also distancing jihadi elements and preventing them from taking over power centers in the country.

 So far, these only some of these goals have been achieved. The Supreme Military Council, which was elected by several hundred field commanders and officers, does indeed comprise local figures, while the FSA commanders based in Turkey have been excluded from it. The main jihad organization active in Syria – Jabhat Al-Nusra (JN) – has likewise been excluded. However, when the U.S. designated JN a terror organization a few weeks ago, the Syrian opposition rallied to its defense, which sparked apprehension in the West and increased its reluctance to arm the opposition.

This report reviews the efforts to unite the Syrian opposition, and assesses their success.

I. Arab And International Effort To Establish New Coalition Of Opposition Forces

The National Coalition of Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces, formed following efforts by Arab and Western countries, was officially launched in Doha, Qatar on November 11, 2012. The coalition comprises 63 members representing various Syrian oppositionist forces operating inside and outside Syria, including the opposition’s main political body – the Syrian National Council (SNC). It was decided that the National Coalition’s headquarters would be located in Cairo, and that it would establish an interim government at a later stage. The president of the new coalition is Ahmad Mu’az Al-Khatib, a former imam of the Umayyad Mosque in Damascus and the grandson of former Syrian president (1941-43) Taj Al-Din Al-Hasani. Al-Khatib’s three deputies are former Syrian MP Riad Seif, who left Syria last summer and who initiated the establishment of the new coalition; SNC president George Sabra; and opposition activist Suhair Al-Atassi.

The agreement signed in Doha states that the goals of the National Coalition are “to oust the current regime and its symbols, disband its security apparatuses, and work to bring to justice those responsible for [spilling] the blood of the Syrian people”; to “unite and support the military councils, the groups and regiments, and all Syrian revolutionary military organizations, and to establish a high military command under which all the aforementioned bodies will unite”; and to establish an aid fund for the Syrian people. The agreement states further that the coalition will refuse to engage in dialogue with the existing regime and strive to receive international recognition as “a legitimate representative of the Syrian people.” It calls to hold a general national conference once the Syrian regime is ousted, after which the National Coalition and interim government will be dispersed and a transitional government will be established.

The National Coalition was established after lengthy talks among opposition groups and following intense pressure by Arab, Muslim and Western elements. In the West, the U.S. was the main actor pushing for and working to form a new leadership for the Syrian opposition. The multitude of reports on efforts in this direction by U.S. Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford (who left after the outbreak of the violence) and by Syrian oppositionist Riad Seif even led the media to dub their initiative “The Seif-Ford Initiative.” There were also reports on British and French involvement in the initiative. U.S. State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell said that this was an attempt by the U.S. to form a new leadership for the Syrian opposition after being disappointed by the SNC. The Syrian opposition itself denied any U.S. involvement in the unification efforts.

On the Arab and Muslim side, it was Qatar that hosted talks between the opposition forces and worked towards their success, Jordan that hosted a preliminary meeting before the signing of the Doha agreement, and the Arab League that was active during the Doha talks. It was also determined that the agreement would be kept at the Arab League secretariat.

Egypt initially had reservations regarding the initiative, but later changed its tune and was even chosen as the seat of the National Coalition. Turkey, which is known as a main supporter of the SNC and is hosting its leadership, defended the SNC from the criticism against it, but also encouraged it to talk to other opposition forces and to remain the leader of the opposition’s actions. According to reports, Turkey also participated in the Doha talks for the establishment of the National Coalition.

The new body was welcomed by many in the Arab world and the West. It has been recognized as the representative or sole representative of the Syrian people by several countries and organizations, including France, Britain, the U.S., Qatar, Turkey, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and the E.U. Some of these countries and organizations even asked the National Coalition to send them an ambassador or representative.

However, it seems that the international community has yet to formulate a unified position on the Syrian crisis, and that many countries are still reluctant to recognize the National Coalition as a legitimate representative of the Syrian opposition. This was evident at a conference held in Morocco on December 12, 2012, about one month after the establishment of the National Coalition, by the “Friends of Syria” group – over 100 countries and organizations that support the opposition – and which was attended by National Coalition President Mu’az Al-Khatib. The closing statement of the conference did say that participants recognized the National Coalition as a legitimate representative of the Syrian people. However, Egypt and Algeria did not sign the statement, while Sweden announced that it was not even close to recognizing the National Coalition. Further dispute was sparked after the Moroccan minister of foreign affairs and cooperation, Sa’d Al-Din Al-‘Othmani, said at a news conference that “full recognition of the National Coalition as the sole representative of the Syrian people” had been achieved at the conference. The Austrian foreign ministry clarified in response that Al-‘Othmani’s statements reflected Morocco’s position alone, not that of all the conference participants. Moreover, a diplomatic source at the U.N. said that the recognition of the National Coalition was meaningless without the approval of the Security Council, and that such approval was likely to be blocked by Russia and China. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov indeed said that Russia did not recognize the National Coalition but was willing to engage with it, as with any other opposition group.

Internally, it seems that the National Coalition, like the NSC, experienced some disagreements, at least at the outset. Reuters reported that, during its first gathering in Cairo, which dealt with establishing the interim government and various professional committees, there were many disputes between members. One of the results of these disagreements is that, today, about two months after the formation of the National Coalition, the interim government has yet to be established.

The National Coalition – A Substitute For The Failed SNC

One of the reasons to establish the National Coalition was to replace the SNC. Since its establishment in Istanbul in October, 2011, the SNC has been considered the main representative body of the Syrian opposition, and in April 2012, the “Friends of Syria” group recognized it as “a legitimate representative of all Syrians.” The notion of replacing it came following harsh criticism from the international community, chiefly from U.S. officials, regarding its dysfunction and failure to unite the opposition and maintain contact with the forces on the ground, despite the diplomatic and financial support it had received from the international community. Several SNC members even withdrew from it in the past year, claiming that it had failed to defend the Syrians and to justify the trust they had placed in it, and that it did not operate transparently. The SNC’s foreign relations director, Basma Qadmani, who withdrew from it in August 2012, said that it was unable to work well with other opposition groups and to meet the increasing challenges in the field. According to Qadmani, the various organizations within the SNC do not act as one body with one national plan, and some place too much focus on partisan affairs, which hampers efforts to form ties with groups in the field and to extend the necessary aid to the people. Haitham Al-Maleh, who withdrew from the SNC in March 2012, said several months later that the SNC had failed to fulfill its role, acted with no transparency and marginalized others.

U.S. officials also expressed disappointment regarding the SNC’s functioning. They criticized it for failing to unite the political opposition forces under its banner and for holding no influence with the revolutionary forces fighting inside Syria, and called to establish a new opposition leadership that would meet these criteria. One U.S. official told the London daily Al-Hayat that the NSC’s real problem was that most of its members were outside Syria, while the facts were determined inside the country; hence, any new body would have to first of all receive support inside Syria. Even harsher criticism was expressed by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, on October 31, 2012: “We’ve made it clear that the SNC can no longer be viewed as the visible leader of the opposition. They can be part of a larger opposition, but that opposition must include people from inside Syria and others who have a legitimate voice that needs to be heard.” U.S. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland explained that the goal is to establish a body that would receive support inside Syria and maintain contact with the various political groups in the country, especially the minorities, to ensure that their rights are preserved.

In response to these statements, SNC members attacked the “Friends of Syria” group and especially the US. Former SNC chairman Burhan Ghalioun said that the SNC had been wrong to trust “the friendly supporting states,” which he said were responsible for the loss of the SNC and for the fate of the Syrian campaign. According to Ghalioun, “the Americans are looking for a scapegoat to cover for their feebleness and helplessness.” The oppositionist website Sooryoon, which supports the SNC, attacked the U.S. in an editorial. In addition, it was reported that anger over Clinton’s statement about the SNC had been expressed in Friday protests in Syria.

Friends of Syria Conference in Morocco, December 12, 2012

SNC members indeed objected to the establishment of an opposition body to replace them, but promised to participate in efforts to unite the opposition while maintaining the SNC as the main opposition body. Burhan Ghalioun said prior to the meetings in Doha: “The council refuses to take part in an [initiative] seeking to eliminate and kill it. We will strive to turn the [Doha] conference from one intended to kill the SNC into one intended to complete the job that [the SNC] started.”

The SNC continued to oppose the initiative during the Doha talks themselves, despite reported threats from Qatar to stop funding it, and despite assurances by various elements that its status would not be harmed. Eventually a compromise was reached, and the SNC agreed to join the new body, which ostensibly does not supplant the SNC, but is a coalition of various forces, as its name suggests.

The SNC thus managed to block the attempt to distance it from the new leadership of the opposition, and received respectable representation in the National Coalition – over one third of the seats. Some of its other demands were met as well. In addition, about one month after the National Coalition was established, SNC head George Sabra was appointed as one of Al-Khatib’s three deputies.

Attempt To Weaken The Muslim Brotherhood Within The Syrian Opposition

Another goal in establishing the National Coalition was, apparently, to weaken the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) in the opposition and in the future Syrian regime, after claims were made in the past year that the MB controls the SNC. The MB itself claimed that there was a Western attempt to exclude it from the opposition. Several weeks after the establishment of the National Coalition, MB General Supervisor Riad Al-Shaqfa accused Western countries of attempting to achieve this. He stressed that these attempts had failed, that the MB enjoyed popular support, and that the people and political forces in Syria eagerly awaited the return of its members to the country, from which they had been banished in the 1980s.

It seems that the MB indeed wields considerable influence in the National Coalition. Coalition member Kamal Al-Labwani claimed that, even though the MB is a minority in this body, it has the support of coalition members who are not in the MB, which guarantees this movement a majority in votes. According to Al-Labwani, all the committees formed by the coalition are pro-MB. It is possible that the involvement of Qatar, a major MB sponsor, has helped to maintain its power in the opposition.

Despite the attempts to weaken it, the MB, along with the SNC, has maintained its power and even grown stronger in morale. This is evident from two conferences recently held in Turkey, both of them the first of their kind: a conference of commanders representing over 100 military organizations in Syria, which was attended by Riad Al-Shaqfa and his deputy ‘Ali Al-Bayanouni, and a conference of MB youths, which was attended by Al-Bayanouni and officials from Arab MB movements (The Egyptian MB, the Tunisian Al-Nahda movement and Hamas). Al-Bayanouni even visited Syria and met with revolutionary elements in the field.

It should be mentioned that, according to reports, the Supreme Military Council that was established approximately one month after the National Coalition also has a majority of members associated with the MB.

Attempt To Reach Diplomatic Solution In Syria Brokered By International Envoy Lakhdar Brahimi

Yet another motivation for establishing the National Coalition was a Western desire to promote a political solution in Syria that would be acceptable both to the opposition and to the regime, with the help of international envoy Lakhdar Brahimi, after the SNC questioned his mission and stressed that any solution must include Assad stepping down.

Following the unification of the opposition, Brahimi began accelerated diplomatic activity along with the two superpowers, the U.S. and Russia (each of which supports a different side in the Syrian conflict), in an attempt to reach such a political solution. However, the National Coalition and Supreme Military Council reiterated the SNC’s demand that Assad’s ouster be part of any political solution. Several days after Brahimi’s appointment, National Coalition President Mu’az Al-Khatib said that he would not negotiate with the regime: “I will not go to Tehran or Moscow, or negotiate with the regime. [Even] if the coalition unanimously votes to do so, I will vote against it.” At the same time, Al-Khatib said: “The man [Brahimi] represents an international body – the U.N. – and he says that he wants to help. His mission and statements might not be well received on the street, but I think we should let him try, and the [public on] the street can decide [on it].” Al-Khatib also met with Brahimi several weeks later.

Statements by other opposition officials were less tolerant. Ahead of Brahimi’s visit to Damascus in late December, SNC official Monzer Makhous, who is also the spokesman of the National Coalition and its ambassador in France, said that he had no expectations from Brahimi’s visit to Damascus and that the time for political solutions was over, considering the extent of Assad’s crimes. Haitham Al-Maleh, head of the National Coalition legal committee, said: “This is not a crisis that can be solved politically, as Brahimi desires. Syria is the site of a war of extermination by Assad’s gang against the Syria people, and it will inevitably end either with Assad’s death or with his arrest and prosecution.” Salim Idris, chief of the Supreme Military, said that political solutions had been possible in the early stages of the revolution, but now “we have no [choice] but to fight.” Following Brahimi’s call for Syria to establish a transitional government with full authority, National Coalition spokesman Walid Al-Bunni said that the coalition would agree to any solution that did not include the Assad family, and that the first condition was that the Assad family and regime officials leave Syria. According to Al-Bunni, the only concession that the opposition is willing to make is to let Assad leave the country without standing trial. The clearest condemnation of Brahimi’s efforts came from Haitham Al-Maleh. Following Assad’s January 6, 2013 speech in Damascus, in which he proposed a political solution that the opposition unanimously declined, Al-Maleh called on Brahimi to submit a report to the UN Security Council admitting the total failure of his mission.

It should be mentioned that in the last few days there appears to be a shift in Brahimi’s position. In Western media interviews, he attacked the political solution proposed by Assad in his Damascus speech, condemned the Assad family for holding on to the reins of power for 40 years, and called for a real change in Syria as soon as possible. He also said that Assad would not be part of the future transitional government. His statements were welcomed by the National Coalition, and Al-Khatib said that the coalition would accept an initiative involving Assad’s ouster and the formation of a transitional government with elements that “have no blood on their hands.” The regime, on the other hand, attacked Brahimi, claiming that he had overstepped the boundaries of his mission and supported the position of elements conspiring against Syria, though it clarified that it would continue cooperating with him in an attempt to find a solution that conforms to the “Syrian perception.” This response makes a solution acceptable to both sides seem unlikely.  

II. Establishing “The Supreme Military Council”: Strengthening The Influence Of The Forces Fighting In Syria

Alongside the unification of the political opposition, attempts were made to unite those fighting against Assad on the ground. On December 8, 2012, about a month after the establishment of the National Coalition, the Supreme Military Council, a joint high command of the forces fighting against Assad, was established in Turkey. The council was elected by 550 commanders of military and revolutionary councils and brigades who convened in Antalya. It includes 30 military and civilian personnel representing most of the armed groups in Syria, mainly the Free Syrian Army (FSA). According to reports, two thirds of them are associated with the MB, and a few others with the Salafis. Salim Idris, a Syrian officer who defected, was appointed as the council’s chief of staff.

The meeting in Turkey at which the council was launched was attended by security officials from the US, Britain, France, the Gulf and Jordan. According to the pro-Syrian Lebanese daily Al-Safir, the meeting was led by the head of Saudi intelligence, Emir Bandar bin Sultan, and Qatari State Minister for Foreign Affairs ‘Abd Al-Rahman Aal Al-‘Attiyah.

The relations between the Supreme Military Council and the National Coalition are still unclear. Officially, the Supreme Military Council is part of the National Coalition, and its establishment is consistent with the Doha agreement, which called for the coalition to establish a high military command for all military forces acting in Syria. On December 19, 2012, after the establishment of the Supreme Military Council, National Coalition President Mu’az Al-Khatib met with the Supreme Military Council chief of staff Salim Idris, and the two signed a document determining that “the goal is the ouster of the regime and its symbols, and the dismantling of its security apparatuses.”In his speech to the Friends of Syria in Morocco, Al-Khatib said: “A joint command of the military forces has been established, led by talented and loyal [figures]. We congratulate them for their efforts to defend [the Syrian] people, [and they] shall become the nucleus of the future national army.” Another statement, more indicative of the close cooperation between the National Coalition and the Supreme Military Council, was made by National Coalition Secretary-General Mustafa Al-Sabbagh, who said that the coalition will have sole responsibility for transferring material aid to the council. It is unclear whether this is actually being implemented.

Read Full Report http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/6931.htm  

——————————————————————————————————–
Aus dieser Quelle zur weiteren Verbreitung entnommen:
http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2013/05/05/uber-neocons-the-main-architects-of-post-assad-syria-at-work/

Uber-Neocons: The Main Architects of Post-Assad Syria at Work

Bush Era’s Good-Ol’ Familiar Faces Resurface again on Operation Syria

With the approaching Finale for Syria’s Assad the Uber-Neocon architects of US foreign policy have been hard at work. Assuming (albeit knowingly) the certainty of the soon-to-come end for Assad’s government, the neocon architects are drafting and crafting their objectives for the Post-Assad regime in Syria. I know the mainstream and pseudo-alternative media use the term “Neocon” loosely and willy-nilly, but I can assure you this is not the case with my usage of “Uber-Neocons’ here. You will see that clearly after reading the following facts.

Yesterday I found this ‘interesting’ article in the Turkish newspaper Zaman [All Emphasis Mine]:

Analysts Call on US to Cooperate with Turkey Toward New Gov’t in Syria

A group of US foreign policy analysts called on President Barack Obama and his government to work towards drawing a common road map with Turkey that will help ensure the formation of a democratic, impartial government in a post-conflict Syrian.

The US think-tank Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) recently formed its Turkey Task Force, co-chaired by former US Ambassadors to Turkey Mort Abramowitz and Eric Edelman. The task force released on Thursday its first report, which points to a critical need for Turkey and the US to cooperate to ensure the formation of a “stable and decent post-Assad Syria.”

The report also analyzes the differences between Turkish and the US interests in a post-Assad Syria, explaining why it is imperative that the US immediately engage with Turkey in establishing joint principles and plans after a possible ouster of the Assad regime.

Do you notice how many times the term “Post-Assad” is used? Also, pay attention to the analysts named in the article and note that we are looking at architects rather than analysts.

Immediately after reading the above article I went to Bipartisan Public Center’s website, and found that the Zaman article had missed the highly-important third name of the architects aka analysts who have already moved to phase 2, Post-Assad regime building, obviously due to their confidence of the soon-to-come fall of the current regime [All Emphasis Mine]:

Ridding Syria of President Bashar al-Assad has been the goal of the United States for almost two years. Should this objective be achieved, however, an enormous challenge will still remain: stabilizing and rebuilding Syria in a way that advances U.S. strategic goals and values. However, this will require the cooperation of Turkey—a U.S. ally with keen interests in Syria. Ankara’s interests, however, do not perfectly match Washington’s, posing the challenge for policymakers of finding the right tools to align more closely the two countries’ visions of Syria’s future.

Join BPC as it announces the creation of its Turkey Task Force, co-chaired by former Ambassadors to Turkey Morton Abramowitz and Eric Edelman, and releases a paper on the opportunities and obstacles to U.S.-Turkish cooperation towards a post-Assad Syria.

And then, at the bottom, BPC lists the task force principals which includes a third name:

Panel discussion and report release featuring

Mort Abramowitz
Co-chair, BPC Turkey Task Force
Former U.S. Ambassador to Turkey

Ambassador Eric S. Edelman
Co-chair, BPC Turkey Task Force
Former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy
Former U.S. Ambassador to Turkey

Alan Makovsky
Senior Professional Staff Member, House Foreign Affairs Committee

That’s right. We get an additional name: Alan Makovsky.

Now, let us quickly check out the importance of these three personalities and what they have in common:

Those of you who have been following the Uber-Neocon circle and its Uber-Players should immediately recognize Morton Abramowitz. [All Emphasis Mine]:

Morton Abramowitz, president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, establishes a number of blue-ribbon commissions, headed by a select group of foreign policy elite, to create a new post-Cold War foreign policy framework for the US. Some of the group’s members are Madeleine Albright, Henry Cisneros, John Deutch, Richard Holbrooke, Alice Rivlin, David Gergen, Admiral William Crowe, Leon Fuerth, as well as Richard Perle and James Schlesinger, the two token conservatives who quickly resign. The commission will issue a number of policy papers recommending the increased use of military force to intervene in the domestic conflicts of other countries.

After six years as the Carnegie Endowment’s president, Morton Abramowitz moves on to the Council on Foreign Relations.

Check out Abramowitz as a signatory to the infamous PNAC here. Now more on his background:

Morton Abramowitz writes a column in the Wall Street Journal calling for a drastic change in US policy toward Kosovo. Abramowitz is highly influential with the US foreign policy elite (see 1991-1997). He argues that the US should support full independence for Kosovo and outlines options the US should consider including bombing Serbia, removing Milosevic, arming and training the KLA, and turning Kosovo into a NATO protectorate through the use of ground forces.

I guess you all would agree with me on Abramowitz’ status as one of the crusty Uber-Neocon architects of our dirty foreign policies and even dirtier foreign operations.

Now, let’s move to the next architect, Eric Edelman. A couple of excerpts from an article that was written in 2007:

Edelman has close ties to Vice President Cheney and several other administration hardliners. He served under Cheney, then Secretary of Defense, in the first Bush administration. At that time, Cheney set up a “shop” to “think about American foreign policy after the Cold War, at the grand strategic level.” The project also included Paul Wolfowitz and Scooter Libby. [New Yorker, 4/1/02]

From 2001-2003, Edelman served as a national security adviser to Cheney. In 2003, he was named as U.S. ambassador to Turkey, attempting to convince Turkey to cooperate with the Bush administration’s plans to invade Iraq. Turkish columnist Ibrahim Karagul noted, “Edelman is probably the least-liked and trusted American ambassador in Turkish history.”

A good thing this was written by staunch Democrats pre the Obama Administration. Considering Edelman’s current roles under the Obama administration we won’t be hearing much from that same group- the beauty of partisanship in the dumb-ification of Americans. Okay, let’s read more from commentaries and articles written by partisans way-back-when it was okay to expose and criticize Neocons:

But now I discover it was Eric Edelman, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. That makes a whole lot more sense–and really dictates the proper response. You see, Edelman is kind of a poor man’s Dougie Feith. A total shill–and Cheney asset–though apparently with less flair for propaganda. He’s the bright guy who first suggested leaking Plame’s identity to rebut Joe Wilson. And, as it turns out, he realized after he suggested to Libby that the information in question may have been classified.

After a June 2003 article about Iraq and the uranium issues that caused concern to Edelman and Libby, Edelman asked Libby whether information about how the Wilson trip came about could be shared with the press to rebut allegations that the Vice president sent Wilson. Edelman testified that Libby responded by indicating that there would be „complications“ at the CIA in disclosing that information publicly. Ambassador Edelman indicated that he understood that he and Libby could not further discuss the matter because they were speaking on an open telephone line and Edelman understood that this might involve classified information.

I guess the above facts on Eric Edelman suffice in establishing him as one of the second-generation Uber-Neocons. Are you with me, so far? Good.

Now, let’s move to the down-played third name: Alan Makovsky. Since WINEP (Washington Institute for Near East Policy) shows up as one of the common denominators among the long-term Uber-Neocons, we’ll start with Makovsky’s role there: 

The Turkish Research Program is one of the centers of the institute.[24]The program was founded in 1995. Under the leadership of founding director Alan Makovsky and interim director Helena Kane Finn, the center introduced the Washington policymaking community to Turkey’s leading political, diplomatic, military, and academic figures.

More general background information on Alan Makovsky:

Alan O. Makovsky, a Senior Fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, is a specialist on Middle Eastern and Turkish affairs. He joined The Washington Institute in May 1994 after eleven years in the U.S. Department of State, where he had served in a variety of capacities, most notably as Special Advisor to Special Middle East Coordinator Dennis Ross in 1993 and in 1992 as State Department liaison officer and political advisor to Operation Provide Comfort.

And here are a few words on his long-term role in the Turkish-Israeli lobby from an article in NYT:

Probably the most important development in Turkish foreign policy in the last year has been the rapid improvement of its ties with Israel, and this newly strengthened relationship was a topic of much discussion among Turks and Americans at the conference. Alan Makovsky of the Washington Institute for Middle East Politics called the speed with which Turkey and Israel have drawn together “truly breathtaking“ and described it as “probably the most dramatic strategic development in the Middle East since the signing of the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty ended the prospect of a multi-front Arab assault on Israel.“

Makovsky as an ever-present figure in the infamous Turkish-Israeli Lobby ATC:

Speaking at the ATC meetings, Makovsky argued that the most serious problem between Turkey and the United States may stem from the Greek Cypriots‘ possible membership in the EU. Indicating that Greece would tell the EU that if the Greek Cypriots are not admitted into the club, Athens would veto enlargement, Makovsky said Washington would have to make a choice: either support the Greek Cypriots‘ membership at the expense of Turkey’s anger or oppose the membership. He stressed that the United Sates should not support the Greek Cypriots‘ EU membership bid. He also said that he thought the new administration would endorse the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline project.

I have to reluctantly include an excerpt from a site and an author I truly dislike. The only reason I am including this is to show you the gang Alan Makovsky is an integral part of, so forgive me for the source:

The new Israeli-Turkish partnership is a great fit internationally as well. Foiled by human rights groups in Europe, and the Greek and Armenian lobbies in the United States, Turkey needs a reliable source of high-technology military equipment. The Israelis, always the odd man out in their region, are now not so much alone. As for the Turks, always relative strangers in Washington, they now have a well-connected ally, of whom they expect a great deal… And Ankara relies not just on Israelis; to make its case, it also counts on American Jews such as Morton Abramowitz, Douglas Feith, Alan Makovsky, Richard Perle, and Harold Rhode, and on institutions such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs.

Now, let me point out another major commonality between Eric Edelman and Alan Makovsky. Last week I wrote an article on the CIA’s Graham Fuller and his role in US BlackOps in Central Asia & the Caucasus, his intimate connections to the Boston Terror Attack, and very importantly, his presence in my State Secrets Privilege Gallery since 2008. It is time to revisit my SSP Gallery again: Click Here

Alan Makovsky and Eric Edelman have both been present together with Graham Fuller in that gallery since 2008.

When we check further we’ll see that Graham Fuller and Morton Abramowitz have also been intimately connected, including their partnership in books and policy paper projects.

There are not many political and intelligence related subjects where I publically engage in and declare ‘absolutism.’ However, there is one point in these areas that has achieved an ‘absolute’ status for me, and that is: There are no coincidences when it comes to the CIA and our foreign policy black deeds. Whether it is CIA’s Graham Fuller’s intimate connections to the Boston Terror Attack, or, Syria-Russia, or the same-old Uber-Neocon architects’ foot-prints and work in the background, a declaration of ‘simple coincidences’ is nothing short of denial.

I have been writing, analyzing and talking about the connections between the Boston Terror, CIA, Graham Fuller, Syria, Russia, and Caucasus-Central Asia. You can read my previous analyses at Boiling Frogs Post, and I encourage you to listen to my recent interview, and watch this video. The operatives and Uber-Neocon architects are now busy preparing the second phase for Syria.

# # # #

Sibel Edmonds is the Publisher & Editor of Boiling Frogs Post and the author of the Memoir Classified Woman: The Sibel Edmonds Story. She is the recipient of the 2006 PEN Newman’s Own First Amendment Award for her “commitment to preserving the free flow of information in the United States in a time of growing international isolation and increasing government secrecy” Ms. Edmonds has a MA in Public Policy and International Commerce from George Mason University, a BA in Criminal Justice and Psychology from George Washington University.

Background Notes:

*You can check out our latest updates on this case here, here , here and here.

** Sibel Edmonds on Operation Gladio Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V

 ————————————————————————————————————————————–Aus dieser Quelle zur weiteren Verbreitung entnommen:
http://en.alalam.ir/news/1472130

Qatar intelligence chief dies of wounds in Somalia

Scene of Somalia car bomb attack (file photo)
Scene of Somalia car bomb attack (file photo)
Qatar’s intelligence chief has died of his wounds after the Sunday car bomb blast in Somalia, Lebanese ad-Diyar newspaper reports.

„This person worked as a coordinator recruiting Yemenis and sending them to Syria after being trained by U.S. Special Forces in Qatar,“ the newspaper added.

Around 11 people were killed in Somalia’s capital Sunday when a suicide attacker from the al-Qaeda-linked al-Shebab insurgents rammed a car laden with explosives into a convoy carrying officials from Qatar, police said.

„Several people have been killed, the blast was big … the number of those killed is around 11,“ police official Mohamed Adan said.

The blast is the latest in a string of bloody attacks in the seaside capital, where al-Qaeda linked al-Shebab insurgents have vowed to topple the government and have set off several bombs and launched guerrilla-style strikes.

The car exploded close to a police station at the central K4 roundabout, a busy part of Mogadishu where many people gather to drink tea at roadside stalls.

„I saw eight bodies including a woman, some of them were burned very badly by the fire from the explosion,“ said eyewitness Ali Yusuf. „It was a terrible sight.“

Reports say that the armored car hit in the attack had been damaged with its back windows blasted out. Other police officials said that at least 10 people had been killed.

A second bomb hidden by the roadside and remotely detonated was set off around the same time in the Daynille district of Mogadishu targeting passing security forces, but injured no one, police added.

The attack on Sunday comes after a week-long major security operation in the capital, with police closing down roads and searching cars for explosives.

—————————————————————————————————————————————–
 
http://en.alalam.ir/news/1498344
 
 
 
Israeli regime concludes an agreement with Saudi Arabia to arm Syrian militants.
Israeli regime has concluded an agreement with Saudi Arabia to pave the ground to supply required weapons to foreign backed militant groups in Syria, Israeli Radio reports.

According to report, Saudi Arabia has already accepted to provide financial resources required to purchase Israeli army old weaponries to be delivered to the militant groups fighting against Syria government.

According to the agreement, it was decided that Saudi Arabia covers a fund of at least 50 million USD to enter negotiations with Israeli army over the immediate delivery of weapons.

The report cited unnamed Israeli regime security sources as saying that Israel has accepted to deliver weapons including tanks and heavy artillery, machine guns, anti-tank missiles, ammunitions, communication devices as well as light war vehicles.

The sources also added that the delivery of such equipment to the militant groups will pose no risk to Israel as all the weaponries are belonging to old generation.

According to repot, Turkey and Jordan have already announced their acceptance to transfer the weapons through their border lines to Syria.

The European Union failed to extend an arms embargo on Syria back in May, effectively giving the green light to individual governments, including Saudi Arabia, London and Tel Aviv to send arms to Syrian militants.

The EU also gave the go-ahead to the European banks to help the Syrian militants by opening branches and accounts there.

This comes as, the Financial Times revealed earlier that Qatar has funneled billions of dollars to Syrian terrorists over the past two years in an attempt to overthrow the Syrian government.

—————————————————————————————————————————————
 Aus dieser Quelle zur weiteren Verbreitung entnommen:
http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/syria-alternatives-ii-no-homegrown-solutions

Syria Alternatives (II): No Homegrown Solutions

Al-Akhbar is currently going through a transitional phase whereby the English website is available for Archival purposes only. All new content will be published in Arabic on the main website (www.al-akhbar.com).Al-Akhbar Management

 

A handout image released by the United Nations shows a shell on a street in a residential area of Talbisah in Homs city, 11 June 2012. (Photo: AFP – HO – UNITED NATIONS – David Manyua)

By: Radwan Mortada

Published Wednesday, June 13, 2012

Opposition leaders inside Syria are increasingly at odds with exile groups over the future course of the revolution and the need for a UN-mediated solution to stem the bloodshed.

Syrian opposition sources concur that the three largest armed rebel formations active in the country are the Rijal Allah (Men of God) Brigade, the Khalid Ibn al-Walid Battalion, and the al-Farouq Battalion.

They each have different orientations and outlooks. The Khalid Ibn al-Walid Battalion is loyal to and supported by the Muslim Brotherhood. Most of the al-Farouq Battalion’s members are Salafis, armed and funded by Saudi Arabia. Both of these groups are at odds with Rijal Allah and other factions, such as the Ali Ibn Abi-Taleb Brigade, which accuse them of pursuing foreign agendas.

Rijal Allah takes its political lead from al-Radeef al-Thawri (The Revolutionary Reserve), a movement active in the Damascus countryside, the capital itself, and in and around al-Rastam, Aleppo and Latakia, according to its secretary-general , known as Abu Abd al-Rahman. He says the movement has some 6,200 men under arms. Each member is registered by name, along with the weapons they possess. But they are prepared to put these down in return for political gains under United Nations protection.

The Rijal Allah Brigade used to be led by Amjad al-Hameed, a charismatic former Syrian army captain who defected after its crackdown in al-Rastam and became a rebel commander. He was assassinated some months ago, apparently by hardline Islamists, after he spoke out against their growing influence in the insurgency and their engagement in sectarian killings. He was succeeded by another army defector, Captain Hudhaifa al-Qasem.Within this grouping – and others too, including the Umar al-Khattab, Ali Ibn bi-Taleb and Abu Bakr al-Siddiq brigades (the latter commanded respectively by former first lieutenants Fayez al-Abdallah and Uqba Saadeddin) – opposition sources say there is alarm at the emergence and behavior of hardline Takfiri rebel groups. They accuse them of undermining the revolution, and say there have been an increasing number of clashes between these and other opposition factions for control on the ground in various areas.

The commander of one group of fighters, the Reef Dimashq (Damascus Countryside) Martyrs Brigade, voices dismay at the current state of the armed revolt. Ibn al-Sham al-Thaer, as he is known, blames the false expectations and perceptions created by high media-profile spokesmen such as colonels Mustafa al-Sheikh, Riyadh al-Asad and Qasem Saadeddin. He says that their constant public bluster is never matched by actions the ground, and this has undermined many people’s trust in the Free Syria Army (FSA).

Ibn al-Sham – who says he takes his political lead from al-Radeef as he shares its convictions and goals – stresses the need for divisions between opposition factions to be overcome in order to arrive at a solution that spares the Syrian people’s blood. He warns of imminent massacres, and urges friends of the Syrian people to launch some initiative aimed at averting further killing.

The attitude of Ibn al-Sham, who operates inside Syria, is sharply at odds with that of many other commanders, some of whom have turned out to be based abroad. The Saudi-based rebel brigade commander known as Alaa al-Sheikh, for example, speaks of victory being around the corner, and of high morale among the revolutionaries, who “see paradise from the gun-barrel, as they are fighting with faith.”

UN Responsibility

In contrast, al-Radeef and others believe “there is no question of the regime being overthrown by force given the weapons available to the revolutionaries,” says the movement’s secretary-general. “We support overthrowing the regime within the terms of the Annan plan,” he explains.“There are those who say: ‘Let the country go to ruin for 10 or 15 years; afterwards it will recover.’ But we say we went a plan that spares us bloodshed and anarchy,” he says.

The plan sought by Abd al-Rahman does not actually exist, at least not yet. But he says that the formulation of a political “roadmap” is essential given the fragmentation of opposition groups. He warns that “the anarchy of arms” risks undermining support for the opposition fighters, and the priority should therefore be to unify rebel ranks.

“We in al-Radeef have the capacity to bring together the different factions that have control on the ground,” he elaborates. He proposes that the UN provide protection for their representatives to meet and formulate a common position, as a basis for pursuing the Annan plan – “unless these nations do not want this plan to succeed.” But he says attempts by al-Radeef leaders to contact the UN have received no response so far.

“We can lead the dialogue. We want protection from Kofi Annan so we can meet and say what we want,” he affirms.

Abu Abd al-Rahman takes issue with the “no dialogue” stance of the Syrian National Council (SNC). “Where else does that lead us?” he remarks. He adds that most of the opposition figures based outside the country “do not represent the Syrian people.”

Many opposition leaders and defecting former army officers are similarly at odds with the SNC over the future course of the “revolution”. The armed rebellion’s inability either to topple the regime, or to sustain itself indefinitely without achieving results, poses dilemmas. They fear that once the Annan plan is pronounced a failure, the regime will unleash a devastating no-holds barred crackdown.

Such groups are trying hard to develop political solutions that can halt further bloodshed. They are also aware that rebel control on the ground is precarious so long as it is not translated into political gains. But they have gone little further than putting forward the idea of the UN providing protection while the armed factions agree a unified position

One impediment to such an agreement is that while many opposition leaders and defecting officers privately concede that the regime cannot be brought down by force of arms, they are reluctant to say so openly as they would be branded as traitors.

“They would accuse us selling out the blood of the fallen martyrs,” says one such figure. To which another retorts: “We preserve the martyrs’ blood if we spare our people from massacres and do not lead them to perdition.”The solution they propose is seen as providing an opportunity for the revolution to develop a political framework. They argue that this is vital if the regime is to be removed or political gains are to be made.

Until recently, many pinned their hopes on one of two things: foreign military intervention; or a coup led by an officer who could appeal to the support of the people and armed factions. They no longer expect the former, and there has been no trace of anyone who could carry out the latter, at least not in the foreseeable future.

Many opposition supporters are thus reaching the conclusion that the choice is narrowing down: either dialogue, or the downfall of Syria.

This article is an edited translation from the Arabic Edition.

————————————————————————————-————
Aus dem per ÖVP-Amtsmissbräuche offenkundig verfassungswidrig agrar-ausgeraubten Tirol, vom friedlichen Widerstand, Klaus Schreiner

Don´t be part of the problem! Be part of the solution. Sei dabei! Gemeinsam sind wir stark und verändern unsere Welt! Wir sind die 99 %! 

“Wer behauptet, man braucht keine Privatsphäre, weil man nichts zu verbergen hat, kann gleich sagen man braucht keine Redefreiheit weil man nichts zu sagen hat.“ Edward Snowden

banner (4)

PDF-Downloadmöglichkeit eines wichtigen sehr informativen Artikels über den amerikanischen Militärisch-industriellen-parlamentarischen-Medien Komplex – ein Handout für Interessierte Menschen, die um die wirtschaftlichen, militärischen, geopolitischen, geheimdienstlichen, politischen Zusammenhänge der US-Kriegsführungen samt US-Kriegspropaganda mehr Bescheid wissen wollen :

—————————————————————————————————————————————
VIDEO: Der militärisch-industrielle Komplex, das kriegsdürstende Hydra Ungeheuer! Die Hauptursache der imperialen US-Kriege und der failed states made by US und der Kriegsflüchtlingsströme.

————————————————————————————-————

 Präsentation1301MachtUSA Schaubild MIK

PräsentationMikaktuell

Frauen des Schreckens

Folge dem Geld US Bonds

Hier noch eine kurzes Video zur Erklärung der Grafik Gewaltspirale der US-Kriege

praesentation4motive

Ein wirklich sehr empfehlenswertes aufklärendes Buch: 

3130558971

Aktivist4you empfiehlt wärmsten das unabhängige Magazin www.free21.org zu unterstützen bzw. zu abonnieren. 

download

Bitte teile diesen Beitrag:

Schreibe einen Kommentar

Deine E-Mail-Adresse wird nicht veröffentlicht. Erforderliche Felder sind mit * markiert