Sinister American/British Mission To Pulverize the World

Russia and China say any decision on a transition of power in Syria should only be made by the Syrian people.

Interview with Dr. Webster Tarpley

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi announced the stances of their countries after a meeting on the situation in Syria at the United Nations office in Geneva on Saturday.

Syria has been experiencing unrest since mid-March 2011. Many people, including security forces, have been killed in the turmoil.

Press TV has conducted an interview with Dr. Webster Griffith Tarpley, an author and historian from Washington, to further discuss the issue. The following is a rough transcription of the interview.

Press TV: Looking at the rights record of the participants of the meeting in Geneva, particularly that of the United States, it’s somehow hard to believe that their only concern is of human rights. Can you tell us how a regime change in Syria may benefit every participant in that conference?

Tarpley: The current US policy under the Obama administration with Hillary Clinton in the State Department aims at the destruction of all sovereign states on this planet. It’s really rolling the world situation back to the time before the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 which established the regime of modern independent sovereign states.

The desperation of the US and the British comes from their financial bankruptcy, and what they’ve got to do is increase the rate of exploitation and looting and sacking of the entire world economy. In the course of this, they find that any national government is an intolerable obstacle. It gets in their way.

It can say no, like Mubarak said no to them on numerous occasions and Gaddafi said no most of the time, so they decided to smash up these countries. But notice their goal is not just regime change: it’s now microstates; “ministates”, to use the terms of Zbigniew Brzezinski; “partition”, the favorite term of George Soros; balkanization, failed states, rump states, warlords – warlords of the type that we see for example in Libya.

This is the goal, to have a situation where the International Monetary Fund and NATO rule the world from above but then on the ground you’ve got a kind of crazy court of petty, squabbling, impotent little entities that could never resist Exxon Mobile or JP Morgan Chase or Halliburton or anything of the kind, something, again, like Libya today.

That’s where they’re headed to this. It would be for them to break up Syria, to detach the Kurdish part, to detach parts that would be claimed by Turkey, to perhaps start the Lebanese civil war again, perhaps there would be a continuous civil war in Syria, perhaps Israel will start helping itself to various tracts of territory, and so on down the line. So that’s where this is going. It’s very sinister.

Press TV: Taking a look at the situation on the ground, for how long do you think Assad and the Assad administration in general will be able to absorb such huge pressure and stay in power?

Tarpley: I think indefinitely. I think for a very long time. Assad’s holding power may turn out to be greater than the holding power of the coalition that is against them. This of course depends on Russia and China maintaining their current blocking position in the Security Council.

Hillary Clinton, after that tirade, that outburst that we just heard, her hysterical plan is to go back to the Security Council and to try once again to get a Chapter 7 resolution through the Security Council, and that would include draconian economic sanctions and it will eventually lead them to an armed attack, a no-fly zone – meaning bombing, humanitarian corridors, buffers zones and so forth. That will be a massive attack on Syria.

There is no indication that Russia will go along. Lavrov, leading the proceedings today, said the important thing is that nothing has been imposed. When we look at this empty formula that they’ve come up with, it’s a kind of face-saving piece of rhetoric or boilerplate for all of them.

On the one side, Assad and his government have said we will not accept a solution dictated by foreigners; that’s sound policy.

Then we have the Syrian National Council, always helpful in this way, they say they will never negotiate with Assad because Assad has blood on his hands.

We’re finding out right now thanks to the Frankfurter Allgemeine in Germany, the big conservative paper in Frankfurt, that it was the Free Syrian Army that carried out the Houla massacre not Assad, not the Syrian army, but rather these bloody NATO death squads that have been brought in which Hillary Clinton is supporting – and Hague and Fabius and the rest of these people. Indeed, Kofi Annan, the hypocrite, is nothing but a front man for essentially these death squads.

Press TV: There is talk of a coalition government, and you pointed to it briefly, but how likely will this coalition government be formed and just how much will Assad agree to it?

Tarpley: There have been elections. That’s another one of these sort of Orwellian features in these proceedings. There have just been elections in Syria in which more than 50 percent, I’m not sure exactly how many but by all indications more than half of the people who were registered to vote have voted, and there were opposition figures.

Not everyone elected in those elections was from the Ba’ath Party. Of course, the Syrian National Council, the group of adventurers who like to live in expensive hotels and make pronunciations to the four points of the compass, they always say they won’t negotiate. Why would they? They’ve been living high on the hog the way it is.

There have been elections where you didn’t have to be a member of the Ba’ath Party. Full elections have been held but Kofi Annan said ‘those are not good enough, that’s not what we mean.’

Well, what do you mean then given the fact that the Syrian Free Army, the Syrian National Council said they won’t participate in elections? They are the ones who are intractable and the guilt of the crisis goes to them. I think Assad can hold out for quite a while.

Indian Foreign Minister In Tajikistan, Hoping for a Bigger Piece of the Action

Ayni Air Base outside Dushanbe

Farkhor Air Base on Afghan Border near Kunduz.  Site of previous Indian field hospital, where Ahmed Shah Masood was pronounced dead after he was killed in a terrorist bombing on September 9, 2001.  Possible site of new 70-bed field hospital announced by India.

SM Krishna headed to Tajikistan to cement Central Asian ties

New Delhi: Against the growing strategic importance of Eurasia and Central Asia, External Affairs Minister SM Krishna Monday headed to Tajikistan on a two-day visit to expand diplomatic and strategic ties with the the strategically located country and region.

In capital Dushanbe, Krishna is expected to hold comprehensive discussions with his Tajik counterpart and the Tajikistan leadership on India-Tajik bilateral relations and on the situation in the region.

S M Krishna is headed to Tajikistan.

Given the growing strategic importance of the Eurasia region, including Central Asia, in India’s foreign policy, Krishna is expected to outline India’s policy priorities in this region, the external affairs ministry said here.

Krishna is expected to outline a roadmap to accelerate India’s engagement with the energy-rich region in all spheres, including political, economic and people-to-people relations.

He is also expected to discuss enhanced defence cooperation with Tajikistan. India has its only overseas military base in Tajikistan, which is operated by the Indian Air Force in collaboration with the Tajikistan Air Force.

With the new focus on people-centric diplomacy, Krishna will also address a regional conference of Indian ambassadors and heads of missions in the Eurasian region.

During this year, Krishna has held such meetings of the Indian heads of missions on a regional basis in Singapore, Cairo, Abu Dhabi, Madrid and Havana.

IANS

Washington Expects Invitation from Manila To Deploy Air Assets Over South China Sea

Exclusive: Philippines may ask for U.S. spy planes over South China Sea

Philippine President Benigno Aquino listens below the presidential emblem during the launch of a vaccine against diarrhea for poor families at the presidential palace in Manila July 2, 2012. REUTERS-Erik De Castro

By Manuel Mogato and Stuart Grudgings

MANILA

(Reuters) – The Philippines may ask the United States to deploy spy planes over the South China Sea to help monitor the disputed waters, President Benigno Aquino told Reuters on Monday, a move that could worsen tensions with its giant neighbor China.

The two countries only recently stepped back from a months-long standoff at the Scarborough Shoal, a horseshoe shaped reef near the Philippines in waters they both claim – the latest round of naval brinkmanship over the resource-rich sea.

The United States has stressed it is neutral in the long-running maritime dispute, despite offering to help boost the Philippines’ decrepit military forces. China has warned that “external forces” should not get involved.

“We might be requesting overflights on that,” Aquino told Reuters in an interview, referring to U.S. P3C Orion spy planes. “We don’t have aircraft with those capabilities.”

There was no immediate comment from Washington.

Last month, Aquino pulled out a lightly armed coast guard ship and a fisheries boat due to bad weather around the Scarborough Shoal, a group of rock formations about 140 miles west of the main Philippine island of Luzon.

The South China Sea is potentially the biggest military flashpoint in Asia, and tensions have risen since the United States adopted a policy last year to reinforce its influence in the region.

At stake is control over what are believed to be significant reserves of oil and gas. Estimates for proven and undiscovered oil reserves in the entire sea range from 28 billion to as high as 213 billion barrels of oil, the U.S. Energy Information Administration said in a March 2008 report.

China, the Philippines, Taiwan, Brunei, Vietnam and Malaysia have competing claims on the sea, but China’s claims encompass almost all its waters.

China said last week it had begun “combat-ready” patrols in waters it said were under its control in the South China Sea, after saying it “vehemently opposed” a Vietnamese law asserting sovereignty over the Paracel and Spratly islands.

“We hope the Philippines will no longer issue information that provokes public opinion and avoid complicating the situation,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Weimin told reporters on Monday, responding to the Philippine military’s assertion that it could return to the Scarborough Shoal at any time.

“WE HAVE A LOT OF NEEDS”

Aquino, whose presidency has seen a cooling of ties with China over the sea dispute, said he had not decided whether to send Philippine ships back to the disputed shoal. He said he had called a cabinet meeting on Thursday to discuss the issue and overall relations with China.

“We’ll discuss the whole issue of the relationship with China and I would like to get the advice of my advisors,” the 52-year-old president told Reuters in a wood-paneled reception room in the Malacanang presidential palace.

Manila has been looking to its old ally Washington for ships, aircraft, surveillance equipment and other hardware as the United States refocuses its military attention on Asia. Manila has offered Washington greater access to airfields and its military facilities in exchange for more equipment and frequent training.

“The Philippines has demonstrated time and again its interest to preserve the peace and the de-escalation of the situation,” Aquino said. “But we don’t exist in a vacuum. We would want to see China reciprocate all of these moves that have been done as far as de-escalating the tensions.”

The maritime dispute was high on the agenda when Aquino met U.S. President Barack Obama in Washington last month. In August last year, the U.S. Pacific Command made an initial offer to deploy the P3C Orion spy planes to the Philippines and help monitor disputed areas in the South China Sea after China increased its presence and activities near Reed Bank, part of the western Philippines Palawan island group.

The Pentagon offered to share real-time surveillance data with the Philippines while seeking wider access to airfields in its former colony in Southeast Asia.

Despite its professed neutrality over the South China Sea dispute, the U.S. military “pivot” back to Asia is widely seen as a response to China’s growing military capabilities. Its shift back to the region may be encouraging smaller nations such as Vietnam and the Philippines to take a bolder stance over the sea dispute, analysts say.

“We have a lot of needs,” said Aquino, the son of democracy icon and former president Corazon Aquino.

“For instance the coast watch system – we have 36,000 km (22,000 miles) of coastline. We don’t have radar coverage for all of this.”

Aquino also said he would not object to an increased “rotational tempo” for U.S. military forces in the country to help train their Filipino counterparts.

Aquino said China should not be alarmed by Philippine efforts to improve its monitoring capability.

“Does the Philippines have the capacity to become an aggressor?” he asked. “By any stretch of the imagination, the Philippines does not. So why should it upset a superpower if we’re all reasonable?”

(Reporting By Stuart Grudgings, Manny Mogato and Rosemarie Francisco. Editing by Jason Szep and Raju Gopalakrishnan)

26/11: Pakistan says Mumbai attackers were helped by 40 Indians

26/11: Pakistan says Mumbai attackers were helped by 40 Indians

26/11: Pakistan says Mumbai attackers were helped by 40 Indians
Pakistan will “push” India to share details of the recent arrest of Ansari alias Abu Jundal.

ISLAMABAD: Days after terror suspect Zabiuddin Ansari’s revelations about theMumbai attacks being controlled and facilitated from Karachi, Pakistani authorities have claimed 40 Indian nationals were involved in the terrorist incident.

“Our information is that there were at least 40 Indian nationals who helped the attackers. We want India to come clean on this,” an unnamed official of Pakistan’s Foreign Office was quoted as saying by The Express Tribune.

Pakistan will “push” India to share details of the recent arrest of Ansari alias Abu Jundal when the foreign secretaries of the two countries meet in Delhi this week, the report said.

The two-day talks between the foreign secretaries, beginning on July 4, are expected to be dominated by Ansari’s arrest and subsequent claims by Indian authorities, the report further said.

The Foreign Office official said Pakistan will ask India to share details of Ansari’s arrest.

“India has yet not shared anything with us about this arrest,” the official said.

Pakistan had been saying that the Mumbai attacks would not have been possible without help from Indian nationals, he claimed.

The official further claimed Indian authorities had “always been reluctant to give us the full picture” of the investigation into the Mumbai attacks.

“When a Pakistani judicial commission visited India to collect evidence, it was stopped from cross-examining the witnesses,” he claimed.

Pakistan could take “decisive action” if it is provided details of the investigation, the official claimed.

“We cannot act on hearsay,” he said.

Indian officials have maintained that an agreement finalised between Delhi and Islamabadbefore the commission’s visit made it very clear that the panel would not be allowed to cross-examine witnesses.

Ansari, an Indian national, was arrested after being deported from Saudi Arabia.

Indian officials have said that Ansari was travelling on a Pakistani passport.

Ansari has confessed to investigators that he was in a control room in Karachi from where the 10 terrorists who carried out the Mumbai attacks were controlled, home minister P Chidambaram has said.

Pakistani authorities arrested seven suspects, including Lashkar-e-Taiba operations commander Zakiur Rehman Lakhvi, after the Mumbai attacks but their trial has stalled for over a year now.

Dragging America Into Turkey’s War with Syria?

Dragging America Into Turkey’s War with Syria?

By 

Once again NATO demonstrates just how outmoded it has become.

What is NATO for? It was created to protect Europe from the Red Army. However, the Soviet Union has disappeared. The Warsaw Pact has dissolved. The Europeans have ten times the GDP and three times the population of Russia.

Why are Americans still defending their prosperous and populous allies?

If NATO was merely a social club, it wouldn’t be so bad — though the dues remain a bit high. But the organization has become a transmission belt of needless war. Washington dragged reluctant Europeans into a decade-long nation-building crusade in Afghanistan. Paris and London dragged reluctant Americans into a foolish attempt at regime change on the cheap in Libya. In both cases everyone would have been better off had everyone remained at peace.

Now Turkey may drag Americans and Europeans alike into another unnecessary but potentially much more costly conflict involving Syria.

Syria’s burgeoning civil war has spilled over into Turkey. Indeed, Ankara is ostentatiously meddling in the conflict. Despite Turkey’s denials, the Erdogan government is channeling weapons and other equipment to rebels, hosting the “Free Syrian Army,” and sheltering Syrian opposition activists. Lately Ankara appears to be attempting to create “safe zones” within Syria for military operations against the Syrian government.

Thus, tensions between the two governments were rising even before the Syrian military destroyed a Turkish RF-4E reconnaissance plane. Turkey claimed the plane was merely testing Turkish radar capabilities, but some observers suspect the crew was conducting surveillance. Damascus insisted the aircraft was in Syrian airspace; Ankara said the jet had strayed over Syrian territory but was above international waters when downed.

After the shoot-down, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan announced that “Every military element approaching Turkey from the Syrian border and representing a security risk and danger will be assessed as a military threat and will be treated as a military target.” His government deployed anti-aircraft guns and missiles as well as tanks and other armored vehicles along its border. While Ankara should win any clash between the two, taking on Syria would be no cakewalk. The latter’s military was about 60 percent as large as Turkey’s before Damascus began deploying units to suppress domestic protests. Since then defections and desertions have undermined the latter force, but Turkey’s military has been stretched for years by anti-insurgency operations.

The Erdogan government understandably wants NATO at Ankara’s side. After the airplane incident Turkey reportedly requested that the alliance draft plans for a no-fly zone to “protect” its territory. Deputy Prime Minister Bulent Arinc insisted that the alliance should consider the incident an attack on all members through Article 5, which governs defensive use of military force. Ankara then drew back from confrontation. Although NATO condemned Syria, alliance chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen said that Article 5 was not discussed when the organization met. He added: “It is my clear expectation that the situation won’t continue to escalate.”

Others also sought to downplay the prospect of conflict. Wyn Rees of the University of Nottingham argued that “The NATO members are not looking for a pretext on which to intervene and therefore they do not want one of their members to drag them into such an action.” Dutch Foreign Minister Uris Rosenthal declared: “Military intervention in Syria is out of the question.”

Wars have a way of happening unexpectedly, however. And Ankara might be tempted to provoke war in order to force regime change. Imagine if Turkey attacked Syrian military units in their own territory, sparking retaliation by Damascus followed by a call from Ankara to NATO for support. The U.S. could not easily remain aloof. Bomb Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya which threaten no American allies yet ignore combat between Syria and long-time NATO member Turkey? That would be the end of the official Washington-Ankara friendship, beautiful or otherwise.

The fact that the “North American” Treaty Organization could land America in yet another unnecessary war in the Middle East should trigger a serious U.S. rethink of the alliance. Not the usual reaffirmation of NATO as “more important than ever.” But a challenge to the raison d’être of an organization which decades ago fulfilled its original purpose.

Alliances make sense when directed against a common outside threat. The Soviet Union constituted one. Then there’s reason to back one’s partners essentially unconditionally — even when the parties’ interests are not always aligned. This is especially true when smaller states are dependent on a large, more distant power. If you want to be protected, pay the price.

However, the trans-Atlantic alliance can’t be justified on these grounds today. Neither America nor Europe faces a hegemonic threat, or any other danger beyond its capability to respond. Russia doesn’t qualify. Nor did Serbia, Iraq, or Afghanistan. Syria certainly doesn’t do so.

That doesn’t mean there’s no cause for diplomatic and even military cooperation involving other issues when interests coincide. But there’s no reason to believe that interests automatically will coincide on every issue. There’s certainly no justification for automatically backing other governments, especially when they choose to go to war for their own purposes. As Turkey might against Syria.

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is a nasty character and good people should wish him ill. However, joining Syria’s expanding civil war would be bad for Western peoples and possibly for the Syrian people. If Ankara decides to intervene militarily, it should bear the full cost of doing so.

This isn’t a problem limited to Turkey. Proposals to bring Georgia and Ukraine into NATO are short-sighted for many reasons. The most important is that the U.S. has no cause to make their disputes, especially with Russia, America’s own. There’s certainly nothing at stake which warrants promising to go to war for them against a nuclear armed Russia. Indeed, Tbilisi shot first in its short 2008 conflict with Russia, yet apparently still expected U.S. backing even while outside the alliance.

Instead of expanding or even maintaining NATO, Washington should be leaving NATO. The security argument for Washington’s defense of Europe disappeared years ago. The U.S. is essentially bankrupt while the Europeans have a larger GDP than do Americans. Other issues warrant cooperation with rather than defense by Washington.

The worsening confrontation between Turkey and Syria offers a sharp reminder that NATO is not only expensive for but dangerous to America. This is no time to preserve an outmoded alliance for the sake of nostalgia. The U.S. cannot afford to be drawn into additional disastrous wars in Syria or elsewhere.

ABOUT THE AUTHORDoug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. A former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he is the author and editor of several books, including The Politics of Plunder: Misgovernment in Washington (Transaction).

Anti-Militancy Imam, killed in Dagestan Was Known for Opposing Militants’ Ideas

NAC: Imam, killed in Dagestan, was known for negating militants’ ideas

Imam Magomedkamil Gamzatov, who was killed in the village of Karamakhi in Dagestan, was known for his uncompromising antagonism against militants. This was declared by the website of the National Antiterrorist Committee (NAC) of the Russian Federation.

Let us remind you that at night of June 29, in the village of Karamakhi, a group of armed men in masks broke into the mosque. They shot dead Imam Magomedkamil Gamzatov and one of the believers, set the building on fire and left the place.

“Imam Magomedkamil Gamzatov was widely known for his uncompromising antagonism in relation to all forms of violence; he openly condemned the extremist underground, murders of innocent people and other excesses of militants,” states the NAC’s report. It continues: “He openly advocated the search for peaceful solutions of conflicts and avoiding bloodshed.”

At present, operative investigatory team examines the place. According to the Ministry of Internal Affairs (MIA), Mosque Imam Magomedkamil Gamzatov, born in 1981, and Yusup Ichakaev, a resident of the village of Karamakhi, born in 1952, were killed after a night prayer.

According to the Investigatory Committee of the Russian Federation (ICRF), the mosque was attacked by four persons. “The attackers forced other believers to bring bodies out, then doused the mosque with flammable liquid and set it on fire. Then, the criminals then stole a VAZ 2110 car, belonging to a local resident, and left the place,” the ICRF’s website reports.

June 29, 2012, 9.45, Moscow – Makhachkala

“Imam Gamzatov was widely known for his uncompromising stance in relation to all forms of violence, openly condemned the extremist underground, killing any innocent people, and other depredations of bandits. Distinguished clergyman active position in the direction of dialogue between people with different views, the adherents of different faiths, he openly advocated the search for peaceful solutions to conflicts and to avoid bloodshed.”