Terrorism & Security
A daily summary of global reports on security issues.
U.N.-Arab League special envoy Kofi Annan pauses during a photo opportunity at the start of a meeting with Swiss Foreign Minister Didier Burkhalter at the United Nations European headquarters in Geneva June 5. (Denis Balibouse/REUTERS)
Kofi Annan to propose role for Iran to revive Syria peace plan
• A daily summary of global reports on security issues.
Kofi Annan, the United Nation's mediator in Syria, will present a new proposal today for bringing international powers on board with his peace plan in hopes of avoiding both a full-out war and international powers acting beyond the auspices of the UN.
Western powers, fed up with Russian and Chinese intransigence on stronger action against the Syrian government, began threatening last week to take action outside the United Nations Security Council. US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice suggested they would have no choice but to act without UN authorization.
Much of the international community, as well as Syrians on the ground, have been calling the peace plan a failure for weeks. Violence has continued, and one of the most horrific events of the conflict – the Houla massacre, in which 108 Syrians were killed – happened several weeks after the cease-fire went into effect. There were reports yesterday of another massacre, this time in the village of Qubair in Hama region, with 86 dead, according to The Wall Street Journal.
UN monitors have so far been unable to get into the village to verify reports of the massacre, according to Reuters.
The thrust of Annan's proposal is a contact group that would bring the UN Security Council members – Russia, China, the US, Britain, and France – together with critical regional players, like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey, who back the rebels, and Iran, which supports President Bashar al-Assad, Reuters reports.
The goal is to create a plan for a "political transition" that would remove Mr. Assad from power and hold elections for his successor. The point of the contact group, according to diplomats speaking with Reuters, is to bring Russia on board with the idea of replacing Assad.
"We're trying to get the Russians to understand that if they don't give up on Assad, they stand to lose all their interests in Syria if this thing blows up into a major regional war involving Lebanon, Iran, Saudis," a Western diplomat told Reuters. "So far the Russians have not agreed."
Further details of Annan's plan were leaked to Washington Post columnist David Ignatius. He writes that including Russia and Iran – the "key supporters" of Assad's survival – in the contact group gives them an incentive to help along his removal from power and the ability to protect their substantial interests in Syria.
The Russians’ participation could help stabilize Syria during the transition, because they might get buy-in from the Syrian military, many of whose senior officers are Russian-trained. As Syria’s main weapons supplier, Moscow has, over many decades, developed and cultivated contacts throughout the regime power structure.
Would Russia or Iran support this unconventional proposal? It’s impossible to know. In recent days, the United States is said to have held exploratory talks with Russian officials who apparently have indicated some interest. Russia’s foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, said a week ago that Moscow wasn’t wedded to Assad’s remaining in power, but the Russians have done nothing to move the Syrian dictator toward the exit.
Russian news outlet RT reports that Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Mikhail Bogdanov said recently, “Moscow is not trying to keep Assad in power, his fate is in the hands of the Syrian people." And while in Beijing this week, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that Russia considered it "necessary" to bring Iran into the diplomatic process because it has "real influence on different opposition groups," of which there are "not that many."
According to Ignatius, Russia has offered Assad exile, allowing him to avoid prosecution for war crimes.
But the inclusion of Russia and Iran also makes the plan a controversial one, he writes – some countries, such as Saudi Arabia and Israel, will not be happy about making Iran part of the diplomatic process. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Iran was "stage-managing" the Syrian government's crackdown and "reacted coolly" to the idea of including it more actively, according to Reuters.
Perhaps the biggest thing Annan's new proposal has going for it is the fact that there is still no other option that is palatable to the international community. All chatter about international intervention has been just that: chatter. The result of a failure is all too clear to everyone involved, Ignatius writes.
If Annan’s idea for a contact group proves to be a non-starter, there aren’t any obvious alternatives, other than a deepening civil war. Assad last week resisted the former secretary general’s de-escalation proposals, such as withdrawing Syrian troops from conflict zones and releasing political prisoners. And if progress isn’t made soon, Annan probably will have to abandon his peace effort — with all sides understanding this means a bloody war to the finish.
A still image from October 2011 video footage shows Abu Yahya al-Libi, a Libyan cleric and top Al Qaeda leader, who was killed in a US drone strike in Pakistan earlier this week, confirmed Tuesday afternoon. (Courtesy of IntelCenter/Reuters/File)
US confirms Al Qaeda's No. 2 killed in Pakistan by CIA drone attack (+video)
• A daily summary of global reports on security issues.
The US confirmed yesterday afternoon that Abu Yahya al-Libi, a Libyan cleric and top Al Qaeda leader, was killed in northwest Pakistan.
After initial anonymous confirmations from US officials, White House spokesman Jay Carney confirmed Mr. Libi's death, saying that "there is no clear successor" and that it brings Al Qaeda "closer to its ultimate demise than ever."
Many of the other Al Qaeda figures killed in drone strikes in the area were relatively unknown figures, but Libi became a well-known figure after escaping from US custody at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan in 2005. He was "a virtual ambassador for global jihad," making regular videos, according to The New York Times. After Osama bin Laden's death, he was moved up to Al Qaeda's deputy, behind leader Ayman al-Zawahiri. He had a $1 million bounty and was rumored to have been killed once before, in December 2009 in South Waziristan.
Bill Roggio, the managing editor of the Long War Journal website, cautioned that until Al Qaeda issues a statement acknowledging his death, it shouldn't be considered a sure thing. He describes Libi as "one of Al Qaeda's most prolific propagandists."
Between 2006 and 2010, he has appeared in more al Qaeda propaganda tapes than any other member of the terror group, including bin Laden and Zawahiri. He has weighed in on some of the most controversial and important issues on al Qaeda's agenda. He was the first al Qaeda leader to urge the Pakistani people and the Army to turn against then-President Pervez Musharraf's regime after the military stormed the radical Red Mosque in the heart of Islamabad.
While his death is confirmed, how much of a blow this will deal to Al Qaeda is contested. One American official told the Times: “Zawahri will be hard-pressed to find any one person who can readily step into Abu Yahya’s shoes. In addition to his gravitas as a longstanding member of A.Q.’s leadership, Abu Yahya’s religious credentials gave him the authority to issue fatwas, operational approvals and guidance to the core group in Pakistan and regional affiliates. There is no one who even comes close in terms of replacing the expertise A.Q. has just lost.”
Mr. Roggio acknowledges that Libi has been a top figure for the group, but writes that Al Qaeda has been able to replace other leaders killed by the US. One US intelligence official told him Al Qaeda did not rely on Libi alone. "Libi was an important member, without a doubt, but he didn't operate in a vacuum," he said, according to Roggio.
Dan Murphy writes in The Christian Science Monitor that Libi's death – and at least 1,800 others since 2004 – might not even be best for the US in the long run.
And are all these deaths in America's long-term interests? That's a thorny question right there. Libi for all his association with Al Qaeda, was probably among the moderates within the group's thinkers, reported to be an opponent of takfir – the practice of declaring all Muslims out of step with Al Qaeda's views on the faith as apostates, deserving of death – and some who follow the group believe his death may just create space for someone more extreme to climb up the ladder.
Additionally, the centrality of Pakistan's lawless tribal region to Al Qaeda and other militant groups is declining as a result of drone deaths like Libi's, The New York Times reports. Al Qaeda affiliates in Somalia and Yemen, where the US does not act as freely, are becoming more active.
That it took almost 24 hours for the US to confirm that it was Libi who was killed in the strike indicates how limited the United States' intelligence presence is on the ground in northwest Pakistan, Bloomberg Businessweek reports, noting that it often relies on surveillance of phone calls, text messages, e-mails, and jihadist websites, which can be unreliable.
The delay in confirmation also highlights the fact that the strikes are often carried out without the US being certain that it is targeting the person it means to target.
“Intelligence is never going to be 100 percent accurate,” said Rick “Ozzie” Nelson, director of the Homeland Security and Counterterrorism Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. “The president himself has to decide how much risk he’s willing to take when he approves a strike. You have to consider the possible benefits -- the value of a target -- against the risk.”
…
In al-Libi’s case, targeting the Libyan in the Pakistani village of Khassu Khel was worth the risk of missing him, perhaps killing innocent people, and further damaging the frayed U.S. relationship with Pakistan, which condemned the strike, the two US officials said.
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Yukiya Amano reacts as he attends a news conference during board of governors meeting at the United Nations headquarters in Vienna June 4. The UN nuclear watchdog chief announced yesterday that his agency would hold talks with Iran again this week. (Herwig Prammer/Reuters)
UN nuclear watchdog announces talks with Iran – and suspicions about a coverup
• A daily summary of global reports on security issues.
The head of the UN nuclear watchdog agency announced yesterday that his agency would hold talks with Iran again on June 8 and also voiced suspicions that Iran has been destroying buildings at a military site, possibly indicating a cover-up of activities there.
The site in question is the Parchin military complex, to which the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has been pushing particularly hard to gain access. Iran has consistently refused to grant access to the site. The IAEA suspects that Iran has carried out high explosives tests at Parchin.
Although diplomats and unnamed IAEA officials have mentioned such concerns before, this is the first public acknowledgment by the IAEA head, Yukiya Amano, giving the suspicions weight, according to Bloomberg.
His comments imply that the IAEA is concerned that Parchin is being "cleansed" in preparation for an IAEA visit Iran will likely have to permit at some point, according to Bloomberg. The suspicions are based on satellite images released last month that show activities that include "the use of water, demolishing of buildings, removing fences and moving soil," Mr. Amano said, according to Bloomberg.
Commercial satellite images published subsequently by the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security showed two buildings visible on earlier photos no longer standing.
"There are visible tracks made by heavy machinery used in the demolition process," said a commentary by the think tank accompanying the photos. "Heavy machinery tracks and extensive evidence of earth displacement is also visible throughout the interior as well as the exterior of the site's perimeter."
…
"We have the general concern that these activities may hamper our future verification activities," at the site, [Amano] said. "Information that we have indicates that activities may have been undertaken related to the development of nuclear explosive devices and ... having access is very important to clarify this issue."
Amano announced last month that an "agreement was at hand" on the IAEA's request to visit sites where it suspects Iran might have developed nuclear weapons. His remarks today indicate that the announcement might have been "premature" and will reinforce the beliefs of those who say the nuclear negotiations process is merely a pretense that Iran is using to buy time to hide evidence of nuclear work until it can no longer hold off the IAEA, the NYT reports.
“They hit a bump,” David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, a Washington research group that tracks the Iranian nuclear program, said in a telephone interview. “Amano is trying to expedite things to make sure it’s not a stalling measure. The agency needs to expedite this and find out if the Iranians are serious.”
Bloomberg reports that although Amano did not specify the purpose of the June 8 talks, "it was clear" that the IAEA would pressure Iran to finalize arrangements for the organization to resume its investigation into Iran's nuclear program, which has been on hold for more than four years.
Meanwhile, world powers – the US, Britain, France, Russia, China, and Germany (known as the P5 + 1) – have been trying to persuade Iran to halt its uranium enrichment, which Iran insists is for civilian energy purposes. Talks are scheduled to pick up again in Moscow on June 18. The last IAEA meeting, held in Baghdad in May, opened with optimism about Iran and world powers finding some common ground, but negotiators had little to show at its conclusion, reports the Monitor.
The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace said that an agreement between the IAEA and Iran could "greatly empower the diplomatic process" between Iran and the P 5 +1 if the IAEA is able to secure the ability to conduct a "rigorous" investigation into allegations of nuclear weapons work. With such a safeguard, the United Nations Security Council might be willing to allow Iran to continue enriching uranium, Reuters reports.
So far, that seems unlikely. Amano said yesterday that Iran was not giving the IAEA what it needed in order to provide "credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities," according to Reuters.
An armed Free Syrian Army solider stands guard at a checkpoint on the outskirts of Idlib, Syria, Sunday, June 3. Free Syrian Army soldiers are determined to bring down the regime by force of arms, targeting military checkpoints and other government sites. A U.N. observer team with nearly 300 members has done little to quell the bloodshed. (AP)
Syria likely to overshadow agenda as EU leaders gather in Russia with Putin
• A daily summary of global reports on security issues.
European Union officials gathering in St. Petersburg for a summit with Russia today are expected to pressure Russian President Vladimir Putin to take a firmer position on Syria.
Russia and Syria remain strong allies and Western officials have accused Russia of selling arms and providing support to the embattled regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Mr. Putin has denied these claims, but his nation has also refused to condemn Mr. Assad and call for his removal.
If the EU can persuade Moscow to take a harder line against Syria, it may enable the United Nations Security Council to take more decisive action to end the conflict without Russia exercising its veto power. EU officials will likely attempt to persuade Putin to call on Assad to remove heavy weapons from Syrian cities and step down from power.
“We need to make sure that Russia is using fully its leverage in convincing the regime to implement [the plan],” an EU official told Reuters. “The Russian side has certainly not been very helpful in finding solutions in terms of a political way out.”
Along with China, Russia has vetoed two previous UN resolutions against the Syrian government. Russian officials have denied that they are trying to protect Assad, saying that both sides are at fault and any resolution must reflect that; Russia’s RIA Novosti reports that previous resolutions had a "pro-rebel bias." Putin has already said he would not accept a “Libyan scenario” again; Russia's abstension from UN resolution 1973 in March last year enabled it to pass, paving the way for air strikes that brought down Qaddafi's regime and left political instability in its wake.
China appears equally committed to nonintervention in Syria, following a commentary today by The People’s Daily, the main paper of the ruling Chinese Communist party. The editorial called for the international community to put greater stock in UN special envoy Kofi Annan’s peace plan and not declare it “dead” due to ulterior motives, reports The New York Times.
“The Syrian question should be resolved by the Syrian people,” wrote The People’s Daily. “Outside powers do not have the right to stick their hands in.”
China will likely soon be in a unique position to push for a policy of non-intervention as it is about to inherit the revolving presidency of the UN Security Council, reports CNN. Taking the presidency at such a critical time may have significant implications for international policy toward Syria.
Going into the summit, Russia showed little indication that it would change its policy toward its Arab ally, reports Al Jazeera. Like China, Russia has said violence must stop and the international community must stick to Mr. Annan’s peace plan to end the Syria crisis.
“Russia will continue supporting this position and calls on other states to do the same,” said Russia’s foreign ministry.
Though the Syria question has dominated much of the summit, the main purpose of the gathering is to discuss relations between Europe and Russia and reacquaint European leaders with Putin now that he’s returned to the presidency for a six-year term in office. The Moscow Times reports that the gathering is unlikely to result in any joint press statements or signed agreements.
Israeli soldiers man a tank position at the border with Gazar in southern Israel, Friday, June 1. A Palestinian militant crossed over the border from Gaza into Israel on Friday and fired on a group of Israeli soldiers, killing one. (Tsafrir Abayov/AP)
Palestinian militant sneaks into Israel, kills one soldier
• A daily summary of global reports on security issues.
A Palestinian militant crossed over the border from Gaza into Israel today and fired on a group of Israeli soldiers, killing one and interrupting months of calm. Israeli troops returned fire, killing the militant.
According to the Associated Press, this is the first escalation since March. Two rockets from Gaza landed in southern Israel shortly after the incident.
Islamic Jihad, one of several militant groups in Gaza, sent a text message to journalists welcoming the attack and calling him a martyr, AP reports, although Reuters reports that the group denied responsibility for the attack.
IN PICTURES – Gaza: Daily life under Hamas' rule
Although Hamas has not claimed any involvement in this latest attack and has actually shied away from any provocations of Israel lately, the Israeli military holds Hamas ultimately responsible for all attacks out of Gaza because it continues to amass weapons and has not renounced violence against Israel.
Reuters reports that Hamas is focusing its attention on power-sharing talks with Fatah, which controls the West Bank, and its relationship with Egypt.
The last bout of violence, in March, was spurred by the killing of a Palestinian militant leader. Four days of rockets from Gaza and airstrikes by the Israeli military followed. Islamic Jihad and the Popular Resistance Committees carried out those attacks, with Hamas remaining on the sidelines. According to AP, Hamas wants to avoid a large-scale conflict like the one in December 2008 because it could undermine its control of the Gaza Strip.
The cross-border infiltration might have been a kidnapping attempt like the one that resulted in the capture of Gilad Shalit in 2006, the Guardian reports, noting that Gaza militant groups have acknowledged their intentions of kidnapping more Israelis to use as bargaining chips for the release of Palestinians imprisoned in Israel. Mr. Shalit was released in October, in exchange for more than 1,000 Palestinian prisoners, after being held in Gaza for five years.
"This is our strategy. It's the only way to force Israel to release prisoners," Abu Tarek Mudalel, an Islamic Jihad leader, told the Guardian.
Just yesterday Israel returned the remains of 91 Palestinians to the West Bank and Gaza as a "confidence-building measure" intended to help relaunch peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Most of those whose bodies were returned were killed while staging attacks on Israelis, The New York Times reports.
“We hope that this humanitarian gesture will serve both as a confidence-building measure and help get the peace process back on track,” Mark Regev, an Israeli government spokesman, said yesterday, according to the NYT. “Israel is ready for the immediate resumption of peace talks without any preconditions whatsoever.”
Since a series of exploratory discussions in January in Jordan, which did not bring about any substantial progress, Israel and the Palestinian Authority have exchanged a series of letters discussing their positions. PA President Mahmoud Abbas raised the possibility of a return of the remains in mid-May, according to NYT.
Members of the United Nations observers mission in Syria return to a hotel in Damascus, May 30. (Khaled al-Hariri/REUTERS)
Syrian rebels call for peace plan to be declared a failure
• A daily summary of global reports on security issues.
Syrian rebel forces are calling for the end of the United Nations peace plan for Syria, which would eliminate the only mechanism in place for instilling any sort of restraint on either side of the anti-government uprising that has become increasingly violent.
The peace plan includes a cease-fire, which has been repeatedly violated since its implementation in April but still has acted as something of a tempering force for both the government and the rebels. If the Free Syrian Army (FSA) abandons the peace plan, any last efforts at restraint could vanish.
FSA leader Col. Qassim Saadeddine said in a video message yesterday that the FSA would consider itself "no longer bound" by UN special envoy Kofi Annan's peace plan if President Bashar al-Assad's regime missed the deadline, BBC reports.
Citing last week's massacre in Houla, in which 108 people were killed, most of them by execution, he said "there is no more justification for us to unilaterally respect the truce because [President Bashar al-Assad] has buried Annan's plan," Agence France-Presse reports.
FSA head Gen. Riyad Asaad denied there was a deadline, but urged Mr. Annan to declare his peace plan a failure "so that we would be free to carry out any military operation against the regime," according to Reuters.
Meanwhile, the US envoy to the UN, Susan Rice, issued a dire prediction about the course of the conflict. The New York Times reports that while speaking to reporters yesterday after a UN Security Council briefing, she said, “There seems to me to be only one other alternative, and that is indeed the worst case, which seems unfortunately at the present to be the most probable. And that is that the violence escalates, the conflict spreads and intensifies, it reaches a higher degree of severity, it involves countries in the region, and it takes on increasingly sectarian forms, and we have a major crisis not only in Syria but in the region.”
If that happens, she warned, “The Council’s unity is exploded, the Annan plan is dead and this becomes a proxy conflict with arms flowing in from all sides.”
Rice also said that the Security Council and international community are "left with the option only of having to consider whether they're prepared to take actions outside of the Annan plan and the authority of this council," according to BBC.
The implication there is that because of the steadfast opposition of council members Russia and China to stronger action against the Assad regime, international actors will not be able to rely on the Security Council to take the lead. The US, Britain, and France seem to hold the Assad government mostly responsible for the violence and have focused on actions against the regime, but Russia and China have been insistent that the rebels also deserve much of the blame and have blocked efforts that only target the regime.
Mr. Annan's deputy, Jean-Marie Guéhenno, was more tempered than Ms. Rice in his remarks, but said that council members "had an understanding that any sliding toward a full-scale civil war in Syria would be catastrophic and the Security Council now needs to have that kind of strategic discussion on how that needs to be avoided," according to The New York Times.
A senior Western official told the Times that Mr. Guéhenno said direct talks between the government and rebels "could not be expected" at this stage. The official also said "it was not a given" that Annan's peace plan would be re-upped by the council when it came time for renewal in July.
Amid the diplomatic discussion, UN monitors in Syria reported yesterday that they found evidence of another massacre, this time near Dair Alzour in eastern Syria. They found 13 men bound and shot, many in the head and seemingly from a short distance, the Los Angeles Times reports.
Get daily or weekly updates from CSMonitor.com delivered to your inbox. Sign up today.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov speaks to Peru's Foreign Minister Rafael Roncagliolo during their official talks in Moscow, Tuesday, May 29. Lavrov on Tuesday reiterated Russia's belief that both sides are responsible for the Houla massacre. He also called for a full investigation into the incident before apportioning blame. (Alexander Zemlianichenko/AP)
Syria massacre not enough to break UN deadlock over stronger action
• A daily summary of global reports on security issues.
Despite early talk about the the Houla massacre being a turning point that would goad the international community to take stronger action against Syria, it seems unlikely that the United Nations Security Council will be able to overcome the deadlock that is blocking additional steps.
The May 25 incident in the town of Houla left 108 Syrians dead – by execution, likely by pro-government thugs, the office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights said – in one of the most horrific events of the 14-month-old conflict. The West hoped that the scale of the massacre would at last sway Russia and China's to take further steps against the Syrian government, which they have consistently refused to do.
The United States, Britain, and France have been trying since the early months of the conflict to convince China and Russia, who have veto power on the council, to back further sanctions against the Syrian government. Russia's support for a May 27 Security Council statement condemning the massacre and criticizing the government for using heavy weapons raised their hopes.
But since then, there have been no signs of a softening of its opposition and yesterday Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov reiterated Russia's belief that both sides are responsible for the massacre. He also called for a full investigation into the incident before apportioning blame. "There are no signs Russia and China are ready to support tougher steps at the UN, despite what happened in Houla," a council diplomat told Reuters.
Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov said yesterday that the council's condemnation is enough for now and that any new steps "would be premature," Agence France-Presse reports.
Most UN officials have been cautious in their statements about who is responsible for the massacre until a full investigation can be carried out, giving Russia and China a cover for not making any stronger statements. However, peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous said yesterday that the Syrian Army and "shabbiha" (the name for pro-government thugs) were "probably" behind the incident, Reuters reports.
Despite speculation that the US, Britain, and France were moving closer to support for military intervention, the White House unequivocally ruled that out for the time being yesterday: "We do not believe that militarization, further militarization of the situation in Syria at this point is the right course of action. We believe that it would lead to greater chaos, greater carnage," said spokesman Jay Carney, according to a separate Reuters report.
The only action taken so far, other than the Security Council condemnation, was the announcement yesterday that a slew of European countries, plus the US, Japan, Turkey, Canada, and Australia, were expelling some or all of the Syrian diplomats in their countries.
A statement from French President François Hollande that he would not "rule out" the possibility of military intervention prompted an angry response from Moscow, Bloomberg reports. “To raise the possibility of some kind of military intervention is more the result of political emotions than careful consideration,” said Russian First Deputy Foreign Minister Andrei Denisov.
An intervention cannot happen if Russia remains opposed, so Mr. Hollande's comment has little weight at this time.
Russian foreign policy experts told The Christian Science Monitor yesterday that Russia will stand by President Bashar al-Assad while it remains convenient, but that if its ally's grip on power weakens considerably, Russia will turn its focus to remaining in the good graces of the Security Council.
"It's clear now that the Assad regime is weakening," says Viktor Kremeniuk, deputy director of the official Institute of USA-Canada Studies in Moscow. "The pressure on him will grow, until he's either beaten or runs away. Russia is sticking to its positions, but at the same time it has to show that it is understanding of the situation and flexible enough. The truth is that the Security Council matters more for Russia than Syria does."
This photo dated Tuesday, May 29, shows the United Nations and Arab League envoy to Syria, Kofi Annan and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, meeting in Damascus, Syria. Annan met Assad on Tuesday following a massacre last week that killed more than 100 people. (SANA/AP)
After massacre in Syria, Annan travels to Damascus to push peace plan
• A daily summary of global reports on security issues.
Kofi Annan, the United Nations and Arab League envoy to Syria, arrived in Damascus today to meet with President Bashar al-Assad on the heels of a massacre last week that left 108 Syrians dead.
The massacre is being described as a "turning point" in the Syrian conflict, now in its 14th month, because of the international condemnation it prompted, particularly from Russia, which has been broadly supportive of President Assad until now.
But there has been no change in the international approach. Mr. Annan has merely reiterated the need for both the government and rebels to abide by his six-point peace plan, which has been mostly ignored by the government and rebels since it was unveiled in April.
Details from Annan's visit to Damascus have not been made public. The New York Times reports that he arrived in Syria with "a new mandate from the Security Council – including Russia, which had usually blocked action against its ally in Damascus – to carry out his plan."
The UN Security Council condemned the May 25 massacre in Houla and Annan said he was "personally shocked and horrified," the Wall Street Journal reports.
According to the UN, most of the killed -- men, women, children, in some cases whole families -- were "summarily executed." Only 20 were killed by artillery fire, Associated Press reports.
Rupert Colville, a spokesman for the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights, said that witnesses reported that pro-government "thugs" (called shabiha) were behind the attacks, not government forces, although the shabiha sometimes work with government forces. Government forces did fire on Houla, Mr. Colville said, but he did not pin the blame for the massacre on them, according to AP.
The Wall Street Journal reports that the government said its shelling of Houla was retaliation for a rebel attack on an Alawite village that was organized from the area. Rebels admitted to a fight with government forces on Friday.
The New York Times describes the peace plan as "more precarious than ever." UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon admitted last week that the UN has no "plan B" if Annan's plan fails – an outcome many say has already happened.
From the beginning, the peace plan has been given slim chances of success. But it was seen as an acceptable means to try to bridge the differences over Syria between the West and the Arab nations on one side and Russia, China and Iran on the other.
Some analysts have called it an international stalling measure, because the Western appetite for military intervention in the conflict is low, even in the absence of Russian opposition.
The Wall Street Journal was starker in its description of the peace plan's prospects, describing the diplomatic effort as being "in tatters" and reporting that Western leaders had "few options to pressure the Assad regime," despite international condemnations.
Reuters said it was "an atrocity that shook world opinion out of growing indifference" but noted that with a US, French, and British appetite for intervention low, it's unclear what the result of the renewed fervor for addressing the crisis will be.
Get daily or weekly updates from CSMonitor.com delivered to your inbox. Sign up today.
An image, made from amateur video released by the Shaam News Network and accessed Wednesday, May 23, purports to show a building on fire from shelling in Homs province, Syria. (Shaam News Network via AP video)
UN chief: There is no 'plan B' for ending the Syrian conflict
• A daily summary of global reports on security issues.
In a live television interview on the CNN program Amanpour yesterday, United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon admitted that, despite the failure so far of a UN peace plan for Syria, there is no "plan B" for ending more than a year of violence that has killed an estimated 10,000 Syrians.
"At this time, we don't have any plan B. The joint special envoy Kofi Annan has proposed six peace proposals, among which the complete cessation of violence is No. 1. Unfortunately, this has not been implemented…" Mr. Ban said.
The interview followed the release of a report yesterday on the UN investigation into the conflict in Syria. While finding evidence on both sides of "gross human rights violations" since a UN-backed cease-fire went into effect in April, the report pinned most of the blame on the Syrian military and security forces controlled by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, Reuters reports.
Government abuses included heavy shelling of residential areas, executions and torture. Syrian forces routinely drew up a list of wanted persons and their families before blockading and then attacking a village or neighborhood, the report said.
…
"Most of the serious human rights violations documented by the commission in this update were committed by the Syrian army and security services as part of military or search operations conducted in locations known for hosting defectors and/or armed persons, or perceived as supportive of anti-government armed groups," the report said.
However, the rebels are also guilty of violations, the report states. It notes that they executed and tortured soldiers and government supporters and abducted civilians for bartering in prisoner exchanges and to secure ransom payments.
Investigators, who were not allowed into the country and based their findings on more than 200 interviews, said there have been at least 207 deaths in the almost two months since the cease-fire went into effect, Reuters reports.
Agence France-Presse notes that the report came "hot on the heels of accusations by Amnesty International that 'the pattern and scale of state abuses may have constituted crimes against humanity.' The London-based rights watchdog denounced the UN Security Council for failing to refer Assad to the International Criminal Court as it had done with Libya's Muammar Gaddafi."
Syria's Day Press News reports that President Assad told a special envoy from Iran yesterday that Syria has "overcome the pressures and challenges that faced it" and will emerge from the crisis "thanks to its people's steadfastness and adherence to its unity and independence."
In his television interview Mr. Ban told Christiane Amanpour, the host of the program, that violence has been "dampened" by the deployment of 300 UN monitors throughout the country, but acknowledged that the complete cessation of violence was far off. However, he dismissed the assertion by Ms. Amanpour – who compared the UN monitors' job to "trying to empty the ocean with a teaspoon" – that the problem was the low number of monitors in the country.
"Of course it's not a matter of a number of monitors. We have almost 300 [inaudible] number of monitors. … They are deployed in seven cities, including Damascus ... Homs, Hama, Idlib, Aleppo. They are patrolling every day wherever possible. They try their best to cease this violence. [Inaudible] strong political will at the level of President Assad and also it requires full cooperation by the opposition forces," Ban said. "There are so many spoilers at this time which really make the situation very difficult. We have not been able to commence a political dialogue."
Despite the seeming intractability of the conflict and signs it could be spilling over into Lebanon, Ban seemed to dismiss a suggestion from Amanpour that the UN might consider an intervention like the one authorized in Libya.
QUIZ: Can you find Lebanon and Libya on a map?
While not outright rejecting her suggestion, Ban did not acknowledge it, instead responding, "The Security Council members, when they are united, they can make a huge impact to maintaining peace and security of the international community."
At least 10 people have been killed in Lebanon in the past two weeks in violence linked to Syria's own unrest. According to Lebanese officials, armed gunmen in Syria kidnapped 11 Lebanese Shiite pilgrims earlier this week, prompting protests in Beirut, Associated Press reports.
Pakistan to US: Respect our decision to sentence CIA informant
• A daily summary of global reports on security issues.
In response to US ire and a pledge to assist a Pakistani doctor charged with treason for helping the US capture Osama bin Laden, the Pakistani foreign ministry called on the US to "respect" its legal process.
Dr. Shakil Afridi ran a vaccination program to help the CIA collect DNA to verify that the man hiding in Abbotabad was, indeed, Mr. bin Laden. Yesterday Afridi was sentenced to 33 years in prison by a tribal court and issued a $3,500 fine on charges of "conspiring 'to wage war against Pakistan or depriving it of its sovereignty,' 'concealing existence of a plan to wage war against Pakistan' and 'condemnation of the creation of the state and advocacy of abolition of its sovereignty'," Pakistani newspaper Dawn reports.
“I think as far as the case of Mr. Afridi is concerned, it was in accordance with Pakistani laws and by the Pakistani courts, and we need to respect each other’s legal processes,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Moazzam Ali Khan told reporters today, according to Dawn.
But the US State Department said yesterday that there is "no basis" for Afridi's arrest. "We continue to see no basis for these charges, for him being held, for any of it," said spokeswoman Victoria Nuland, according to the Guardian. "We will continue to make representations."
The Guardian reports that the Obama administration is "privately" angry, insisting that the doctor was acting against Al Qaeda, not Pakistan. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta expressed his concerns about Afridi's arrest as early as January and the administration hoped for months that he would be released as the controversy stirred up by the bin Laden raid settled.
The Christian Science Monitor notes that it's not a given that the US will intervene further on Afridi's behalf because the US and Pakistan have less and less common ground. That the US turned to a Pakistani citizen for help locating bin Laden, rather than Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) "speaks volumes" about the deterioration of relations between the two, he writes.
To Pakistan, Shakil Afridi is a traitor who helped a foreign power locate and kill an enemy on its territory. To the US, Dr. Afridi is a hero who will now, apparently, spend the next 33 years of his life in prison.
…
Now his sentencing marks another low-water mark for the US-Pakistani relationship, and highlights how little common ground the two countries share. But expectations for each side are now so low that it’s unlikely the US is going to adopt another full-court press as seen when another US spy – Raymond Davis– faced detention in Pakistan.
…
There’s also much less riding on the US-Pakistan relationship than even a year ago when the Davis affair erupted. NATO has managed to keep the Afghan war effort going, despite Pakistan cutting off supply lines through its territory. Then, too, trust has evaporated since the discovery of bin Laden in Pakistan and the unauthorized US raid to kill him.
Afridi's arrest is only today's headline example of the two countries' conflicting interests. The US drone campaign against suspected militants in Pakistan – wildly unpopular among the Pakistani public – continued with two strikes in the past two days. Ten people were killed today and four yesterday, according to Reuters. Pakistanis see the drone strikes as a violation of their sovereignty that also inflicts civilian casualties.
Pakistan has repeatedly demanded an end to the attacks, although it also provides some assistance finding targets, Reuters reports.
The two countries are negotiating the reopening of NATO supply routes to Afghanistan via Pakistan, but negotiations have been repeatedly complicated by diplomatic spats between the two countries. The dispute regarding Afridi's arrest is likely to further strain negotiations. Pakistan shut down the trucking routes in retaliation for a November US airstrike that accidentally killed 24 Pakistani soldiers.
Get daily or weekly updates from CSMonitor.com delivered to your inbox. Sign up today.
Previous
Become part of the Monitor community