Russian warships en route to Syria [ 3150 ]

Russian warships cross Bosphorus, en route to Syria

.A Russian warship is moored in the Cypriot port of Limassol, on May 17, 2013. Three Russian warships have crossed Turkey's Bosphorus Strait en route to the eastern Mediterranean, near the Syrian coast, amid concern in the region over potential US-led strikes in response to the Damascus regime's alleged use of chemical weapons. (AFP Photo/Yiannis Kourtoglou)

10 hours ago

-  

Three Russian warships crossed Turkey's Bosphorus Strait Thursday en route to the eastern Mediterranean, near the Syrian coast, amid concern in the region over potential US-led strikes in response to the Damascus regime's alleged use of chemical weapons.
- 
The SSV-201 intelligence ship Priazovye, accompanied by the two landing ships Minsk and Novocherkassk passed through the Bosphorus known as the Istanbul strait that separates Asia from Europe, an AFP photographer reported.
The Priazovye on Sunday started its voyage from its home port of Sevastopol in Ukraine "to the appointed region of military service in the eastern Mediterranean", a military official told the Interfax news agency.
- 
Russia, a key ally of Damascus, has kept a constant presence of around four warships in the eastern Mediterranean in the Syrian crisis, rotating them every few months.
It also has a naval base in the Syrian port of Tartus whose origins date back to Moscow's close relationship with Damascus under the Soviet Union.
- 
Moscow vehemently opposes the US-led plans for military action against the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in response to the chemical attack outside Damascus last month.
- 
Russian President Vladimir Putin warned on Wednesday that any US Congress approval for a military strike against Syria without UN consensus would represent an "aggression".

UN and Syria ..[ 3149 ]

Ban Ki-moon discusses ways to expedite UN probe in Syria

September 3, 2013 11:53 IST// The Hindu

AP Syrian refugees arrive at the Turkish Cilvegozu gate border on Monday. The number of refugees fleeing Syria’s violence has surpassed the 2 million mark, the U.N. refugee agency said on Tuesday.

UN says Syria refugees top 2 million mark

U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon will brief the 10 non-permanent members of the Security Council on the status of the investigations on use of chemical weapons in Syria, as he discussed with his top officials on expediting the investigations, his spokesperson has said.

Mr. Ban discussed with Ake Sellstrhead of the U.N. Mission to Investigate Allegations of the Use of Chemical Weapons in Syria, on how to expedite the process of analyzing the samples according to established international standards and regulations.

-

“Since the return of the Mission last Saturday, the U.N. team worked around the clock to finalize the preparations of the samples in view of their shipment to the designated laboratories. The samples were shipped this afternoon from The Hague and will reach their destination within hours,” the spokesperson said on Monday.

-

The designated laboratories are prepared to begin the analyses immediately after receipt of samples, he added.

Meanwhile, Mr. Ban continued to be in close contact with the five permanent members of the Security Council and will brief the 10 non-permanent members of the Council on the latest developments on Wednesday.

- 

“Also Angela Kane, High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, is due to brief Member States that wrote to the Secretary-General requesting the investigation of the alleged use of chemical weapons in Ghouta area of Damascus on 21 August 2013,” the spokesperson said.

-

Syrian opposition and the West have accused President Bashar Al-Assad’s forces of using chemical weapons on August 21 in a Damascus suburb, a charge denied by the government.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has claimed that blood and hair samples collected from the chemical attack site in Syria have “tested positive for signatures of sarin gas.”

He pushed for a military strike against the Assad regime over its alleged use of the deadly weapon.

-

More than 2 million have fled Syria

The U.N. refugee agency says the number of refugees fleeing Syria’s violence has surpassed the 2 million mark another tragic sign of a civil war that shows no sign of letting up.

- 

Antonio Guterres, the head of the Office for the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, says Syria is haemorrhaging an average of almost 5,000 citizens a day across its borders, many of them with little more than the clothes they are wearing.

-

Mr. Guterres said in a statement on Tuesday that nearly 1.8 million of the refugees have fled in the past 12 months alone.

The agency’s special envoy, Angelina Jolie, says “some neighbouring countries could be brought to the point of collapse” if the situation keeps deteriorating at its current pace.

France is ready to punish Syria...[ 3148 ]

France says ready to punish Syria despite British no vote

Related Video

 

White House says 'preponderance of evidence' Assad used chemical weapons

Thu, Aug 29 2013

• We will continue looking for support on Syria-Hagel
• Syrian president will defend against aggression, state TV

Related Interactive

Recent developments in Syria

White House says 'preponderance of evidence' Assad used chemical weapons (01:46)

By Catherine Bremer

PARIS | Fri Aug 30, 2013 10:18am EDT
- 

(Reuters) - France said on Friday it still backed action to punish Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's government for an apparent poison gas attack on civilians, despite a British parliamentary vote against a military strike.
An aide to Russian President Vladimir Putin, a close Assad ally, seized on Thursday's British "no" vote which set back U.S.-led efforts to intervene against Assad, saying it reflected wider European worries about the dangers of a military response.
U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said his country would keep seeking an international coalition to act together on Syria, where hundreds of people were killed in last week's reported chemical attacks. Syria denies using chemical weapons.
"It is the goal of President (Barack) Obama and our government ... whatever decision is taken, that it be an international collaboration and effort," he said.
Any military strike looks unlikely to happen at least until U.N. investigators report back after leaving Syria on Saturday.
French President Francois Hollande told the daily Le Monde he still supported taking "firm" punitive action over an attack he said had caused "irreparable" harm to the Syrian people, adding that he would work closely with France's allies.
Britain has traditionally been the United States' most reliable military ally. However, the defeat of a the government motion authorizing a military response in principle underscored misgivings dating from how the country decided to join the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Russia, Assad's most powerful diplomatic ally, opposes any military intervention in Syria, saying an attack would increase tension and undermine the chances of ending the civil war.
Putin's senior foreign policy adviser Yuri Ushakov said the British vote represented majority opinion in Europe.
"People are beginning to understand how dangerous such scenarios are," he told reporters. "Russia is actively working to avert a military scenario in Syria.
"CORE INTERESTS"
Russia holds veto power as a permanent U.N. Security Council member and has blocked three resolutions meant to press Assad to stop the violence since a revolt against him began in 2011.
U.S. officials suggested that Obama would be willing to order limited military action even without allied support.
"He (Obama) believes that there are core interests at stake for the United States and that countries who violate international norms regarding chemical weapons need to be held accountable," the White House said after the British vote.
British Prime Minister David Cameron said he regretted parliament's failure to back military action in Syria but he hoped Obama would understand the need to listen to the wishes of the people. "I don't think it's a question of having to apologize," he said in a television interview.
Finance minister George Osborne, one of Cameron's closest allies, accepted that the vote had raised questions about Britain's future relations with its allies.
"There will be a national soul-searching about our role in the world and whether Britain wants to play a big part in upholding the international system," he said.
Pro-Kremlin lawmaker Alexei Pushkov said the British vote had damaged the case for military action. "Britain's refusal to support aggression against Syria is a very strong blow to the position of the supporters of war, both in NATO and in the United States. The rift is growing deeper," he said on Twitter.
Hollande is not constrained by the need for parliamentary approval of any move to intervene in Syria and could act, if he chose, before lawmakers debate the issue on Wednesday.
"All the options are on the table. France wants action that is in proportion and firm against the Damascus regime," he said.
"There are few countries that have the capacity to inflict a sanction by the appropriate means. France is one of them. We are ready. We will decide our position in close liaison with our allies," Hollande said.
"GLOBAL CONFLAGRATION"
In a briefing with senior lawmakers on Thursday, Obama administration officials said they had "no doubt" Assad's government had used chemical weapons, U.S. Representative Eliot Engel, who joined the call, told Reuters.
U.S. officials acknowledged they lacked proof that Assad personally ordered last week's poison gas attack, but in a call with lawmakers, cited "intercepted communications from high-level Syrian officials" among other evidence, Engel said.
Some allies have warned that military action without U.N. Security Council authorization may make matters worse.
Italian Foreign Minister Emma Bonino said on Friday there should be no attack without a U.N. resolution, expressing concern about how Assad's allies, including the Shi'ite militia Hezbollah in neighboring Lebanon, would respond.
"There's talk of targeted attacks, but it's clear that all attacks begin as targeted attacks. Syria will react and we must fear how Hezbollah, Russia and Iran could react. An already dramatic and terrible conflict risks turning into a global conflagration," she said in an interview broadcast on SkyTG24.
"Even if it seems slower, more difficult and sometimes does not seem to be working, keeping the diplomatic and political pressure high is the only possible solution."
Expectations of imminent turmoil eased as the diplomatic process was seen playing out into next week, and the White House emphasized that any action would be "very discrete and limited", and in no way comparable with the Iraq war.
Syrian opposition sources said on Thursday Assad's forces had removed Scud missiles and launchers from a base north of Damascus, possibly to protect them from a Western attack, and Russia was reported to be moving ships to the region.
Damascus says rebels perpetrated the gas attacks, which occurred when U.N. chemical weapons inspectors were already in Syria. Washington and its allies dismiss this version.
The U.N. investigators visited a military hospital in a government-held area of Damascus on Friday to see soldiers affected by an apparent chemical attack, a Reuters witness said.
The inspectors have spent the week visiting rebel-controlled areas on the outskirts of Damascus affected by gas attacks.
Witnesses said the investigators were meeting soldiers at the Mezze Military Airport who state media said were exposed to poison gas after finding chemical agents in a tunnel used by rebels in the Damascus suburb of Jobar last Saturday.
CHINA OPPOSES HASTY U.N. ACTION
The United Nations says the team will leave Syria on Saturday and report to Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.
The United States, Britain and France have said action could be taken with or without a U.N. Security Council resolution, which would probably be vetoed by Russia and perhaps China.
Western diplomats say they are seeking a vote in the 15-member Council on a draft measure, which would authorize "all necessary force" in response to the alleged gas attack, to isolate Moscow and show that other nations back military action.
But China said there should be no rush to force a council decision on Syria until the U.N. inspectors complete their work.
"Before the investigation finds out what really happened, all parties should avoid prejudging the results, and certainly ought not to forcefully push for the Security Council to take action," Foreign Minister Wang Yi told U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in a phone call, Xinhua reported.
Hollande told Le Monde it was now an "established fact" that chemical weapons had been used in Damascus and said France had "a stack of evidence" that Assad's forces were responsible.
China's foreign minister told his French counterpart Laurent Fabius by telephone that it was important to determine not only if chemical weapons were used but who used them.
The samples collected by U.N. inspectors in Syria will be analyzed in Sweden and Finland, a Swedish paper reported, quoting a United Nations spokesman.
Elaborate bio-metric analysis of blood, hair or urine samples is expected to be done in laboratories, which are among 22 used by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in 17 countries.
"The labs are OPCW-bonded labs in Sweden and Finland, with back-ups in Germany and Switzerland. They are pre-assigned as per OPCW standards," the spokesman, Farhad Haq, said in an email sent late on Thursday, Swedish technology weekly Ny Teknik said.
(Additional reporting by Matt Spetalnick, Andrea Shalal-Esa, Patricia Zengerle, Steve Holland, Thomas Ferraro and Jeff Mason in Washington, Erika Solomon and Oliver Holmes in Beirut, Khaled Yacoub Oweis in Amman, Sarah Marsh in Berlin, Timothy Heritage in Moscow, Phil Stewart in Manila, Louis Charbonneau and Michelle Nichols at the United Nations, Lidia Kelly in Moscow, Ben Blanchard and Michael Martina in Beijing, John Irish in Paris and Andrew Osborn, Marie-Louise Gumuchian and Peter Apps in London; Writing by Alistair Lyon;
editing by David Stamp) Interactive timeline:
link.reuters.com/rut37s

Three Videos for Syria..[ 3147 ]

Three CBC Videos concerning possibility for Military preparations and action to  strike Syria.-

----

--
-

"Illegal" War in Syria...[ 3146 ]

Calls for Restraint Rise as US/NATO Push for "Illegal" War in Syria

Published on Monday, August 26, 2013 by Common Dreams

 

UN should play proper role and investigate attack, but even if Assad regime is proved to have used chemical weapons, a cease-fire should be the demand, not Western military strikes and an escalation of war

- Jon Queally, staff writer

As all signs indicate a growing push for Western military intervention—war, that is—in Syria, have the U.S. and its "more than willing" coalition of NATO allies done anything to enact or facilitate a diplomatic solution?
 
And amid calls for missile strikes and possible air assaults against the government of President Bashar al-Assad in the wake of possible use of chemical weapons, has there been adequate consideration of the  further violence and bloodshed that such attacks are likely to cause?
For many, the answer to both questions: No.
Over the weekend, the Assad government acquiesced to demands to give UN inspectors access to the site outside Damascus where a suspected chemical gas attack took place last week. However, Western governments were quick to rebuff the gesture, saying that it was "too late" and claiming that their own intelligence—though offering little insight or details to how they achieved it—left "little doubt" that government forces were behind the attack.
"Here’s the core question now, in regard to Syria: if it’s true that President Bashar al-Assad’s government used poison gas in an incident that killed hundreds of people, at least, in the suburbs of Damascus, can the United States avoid military action in response? The answer is: yes. And it should." –Bob Dreyfuss, The Nation
As The Independent reported on Monday, "Western countries, including Britain, are planning to take unilateral military action against the Assad regime within two weeks in retaliation" for the alleged attack.
Across corporate media outlets and cable news channels on Monday, talk about U.S. missile strikes—most likely from U.S. battleships stationed in the Mediterranean Sea—were being discussed as an almost "foregone conclusion." Citing high-level talks at the White House and between Washington and its European allies over the weekend, reports indicated events are moving rapidly toward a NATO-driven coalition military assault on Syria, similar to that done to Libya in 2011 or Sarajevo in the 1990s.
As was reported by numerous outlets, it is likely that this coalition—led by the U.S., France, and Britain—would not be looking for support or official sanction at the UN due to the assumption that Russia—a permanent member of the Security Council—would veto any effort to authorize an assault.
On Monday, Russia all but conceded that assumption and said that any military attack on Syria by Western nations would be both a "catastrophe" for the region and a violation of international law.
"Using force without the approval of the UN Security Council is a very grave violation of international law," Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told reporters on Monday, saying military strikes would put coalition countries on "a very dangerous path, a very slippery path."
Lavrov continued, warning that strikes would deepen Syria's conflict, creating more violence, not less. "This is not just an illusion, it is a grave mistake that will not lead to any peace, but only mark a new, even bloodier stage of the war in Syria," he said.
"They (the West) have not been able to come up with any proof but are saying at the same time that the red line has been crossed and there can be no delay," Lavrov said.
He also compared the rhetoric over Syria to that made in the lead up to U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the NATO-led assault on Libya in 2011. "The intimidation campaign has already begun, the events in Iraq ten years ago and in Libya, more recently, began the same way," Lavrov said. He also called out the hypocritical nature of US foreign policy by adding, "You cannot fight with a regime only because you don't like the dictator that heads it, and then not fight another regime where you like the authoritarian ruler."
But Russia, with its well known and highly referenced history of backing the Assad regime against Western powers, is not alone in calling for restraint even as U.N. inspectors finally reached the scene of the alleged gas attack on Monday—though not without incident—to begin their investigation into the available facts.
Worried that the pace of events was scuttling a chance for a diplomatic solution, The Nation's Bob Dreyfuss was among those calling for a path forward that didn't involve Tomahawk cruise missiles, writing:

Here’s the core question now, in regard to Syria: if it’s true that President Bashar al-Assad’s government used poison gas in an incident that killed hundreds of people, at least, in the suburbs of Damascus, can the United States avoid military action in response? The answer is: yes. And it should.
That doesn’t mean that the United States ought to do nothing. The horrific incident, reported in detail by Doctors Without Borders, demands action. But the proper response by the United States is an all-out effort to achieve a ceasefire in the Syrian civil war. It’s late in the game but it can be done. The first step would be for Washington to put intense pressure on Saudi Arabia, the Arab states of the Persian Gulf, and Turkey, to halt the flow of weapons to the Syrian rebels, while simultaneously getting Russia and Iran to do the same. A concerted, worldwide diplomatic effort along those lines could work, but there’s zero evidence that President Obama has even thought of that.
Indeed, it seems clear now that the United States is about to launch a series of cruise missile strikes against Syrian targets, including military command centers, airports, and other facilities. A US naval buildup in the eastern Mediterranean, off the coast of Syria, is underway, including four destroyers carrying cruise missiles. Ominously, the United States yesterday rejected as “too late” a Syrian offer – which, indeed, may have been disingenuous – to allow United Nations inspectors to visit the site where the gas was reportedly used. Virtually the entire Obama administration national security team huddled in the White House yesterday to decide what to do about Syria.

But it's not just The Nation where warnings are circulating. As the Wall Street Journal reports:

Officials cautious of intervening say targeted strikes to punish Mr. Assad for using chemical weapons risk triggering a bloody escalation. If the regime digs in and uses chemical weapons again, or launches retaliatory attacks against the U.S. and its allies in the region, Mr. Obama will come under fierce pressure to respond more forcefully, increasing the chances of full-scale war, the officials say.

The WSJ also cites weekend comments from Syria's Minister of Information Omran al-Zoubi who said that an attack by U.S./NATO forces would unleash "chaos" and a "ball of fire and flames" that would "consume not only Syria but the entire Middle East."
And the Independent's Partick Cockburn—who has been both circumspect about the chemical weapons claims but also willing to say that evidence is piling up that Assad's military may have been behind the massacre—argues that European leaders and President Obama himself may well absorb the risks of a wider regional escalation in the name of saving face over earlier statements about "red lines" and chemical weapons. Cockburn writes:

The firing of Tomahawk cruise missiles from four American destroyers in the Mediterranean at targets in Syria are among the actions being telegraphed ahead by the US, Britain and France as the most likely form of retribution for the Syrian army’s alleged chemical attack on civilians in Damascus.
The units and bases from which the US believes rockets carrying poison gas were fired will be probable targets. So too would be Syrian airfields and probably the bases of elite units frequently deployed against the rebels.
If these attacks do take place, with Britain and France in a supporting role, then President Barack Obama will make them heavy enough to be more than a slap on the wrist but not so devastating that they herald the US becoming a participant in the war. It will not be an easy balancing act: ineffective air strikes that the Syrian government can shrug off would be a demonstration of weakness rather than strength. But strikes by missiles and possibly military aircraft will mean the US is crossing a Rubicon, committing itself more than ever before against President Bashar al-Assad and in favour of the armed opposition. This may mean that if there are missile strikes they will be limited in their timescale but heavier and more destructive than expected.

However, as Just Foreign Policy's Robert Naiman pointed out in an interview with Common Dreams last week, "there is no silver bullet of military action when dealing with chemical weapons. Military intervention is not going to control chemical weapons. "
"We saw that in Libya," Naiman said."Intervention didn't control weapons, it set them free."
"We need to be working through international diplomacy, through the UN," he concluded.

____________________________________

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License