"Friends of Syria" Sabotage UN "Peace Plan"

Kofi Annan, Special Envoy for the United Nations and Arab League stated, in his remarks to the United Nations informal session of the General Assembly, April 6, 2012:  “I ask all States with influence on the parties in Syria to use it now to ensure an end to the bloodshed and the beginning of dialogue.”  Annan stated that, the Syrian government having agreed to withdraw troops from population centers by April 10, “a cessation of violence is demanded of the opposition by April 12,” and he twice stated:  “I call upon all parties with influence on the opposition to urge that they also cease all violence.”  United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon stated, in his opening remarks to that meeting:  “Further militarization of the conflict is not a solution,” and Qatar’s ambassador Nasser Abdulaziz Al-Nasser, President of the General Assembly, acknowledged that the ramifications of policies:  “depending on what comes next, could have an impact on the whole region.”  According to The New York Times description of the April 1 “Friends of Syria,” meeting in Istanbul: 

“The United States and dozens of other countries moved closer on Sunday to direct intervention in the fighting in Syria, with Arab nations pledging $100 million to pay opposition fighters, and the Obama administration agreeing to send ‘communication equipment to help the rebels organize and evade Syria’s military’…the moves reflected a growing consensus, at least among the officials who met here under the rubric “Friends of Syria,” that mediation efforts by the United Nations peace envoy Kofi Annan, were failing to end the violence….With Russia and China blocking United Nations measures that could open the way for military action, the countries lined up against the government of President Bashar al-Assad sought to bolster Syria’s beleaguered opposition through means that seemed to stretch the definition of humanitarian assistance and blur the line between so-called lethal and non-lethal support.” 

Although this is a surprisingly candid disclosure by The New York Times concerning the nature of “support” for the Syrian opposition, the Times article apparently misses the point.   In fact, it is the threat that UN Special Envoy Kofi Annan might succeed in bringing about some form of cessation of violence in Syria, without demanding regime change, that motivates the “Friends of Syria” commitment of  financial and military aid for the Syrian opposition on April 1, ten days before the deadline set by Kofi Annan for Syrian government withdrawal from population centers (a deadline initially accepted by the Syrian government) and 12 days before the demand that the opposition similarly cease all forms of violence. In one stroke, on April 1, the Friends of Syria’s commitment of financial and military aid to the opposition eliminated any incentive or need for the opposition to enter into dialogue with the Syrian government, which would be the first step toward peace in that country.  “Leading from behind,” US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared, at a press conference that day:  “Assad must go.”

Assured of massive external support that might enable them to fight successfully to overthrow the government of Assad, the Al-Qaeda infiltrated opposition has every reason for confidence in ultimate victory, and has every reason for sabotaging the success of Kofi Annan’s efforts.  So far, the United Nations has failed to support or provide legal justification for the military intervention that would be required to overthrow the government of Assad, and the Presidential Statements unanimously issued by the Security Council support Kofi Annan’s six point proposal, which omits the requirement that Assad relinquish power, and demands that both the Syrian government and the opposition engage in dialogue.  The Security Council Presidential Statement contains calls for a “mechanism to monitor the end of violence,” and Syria’s government welcomed the arrival of the UN team, led by Norwegian Major General Robert Mood, to prepare for the deployment of observers.  There is, however, an Achilles’ heel in the April 5^th Security Council Presidential Statement which concludes:  “The Security Council requests the Envoy to update the council on the cessation of violence in accordance with the above timeline, and progress toward implementation of his six-point proposal in its entirety.  In the light of these reports, the Security Council will consider further steps as appropriate.”  What those “further steps” will be is not made explicit.  However, in the context of history, it does not take much imagination to recognize the potential (and probably intended) threat contained in the final sentence of UNSC Presidential Statement S/PRST/2012/10.

On February 17, the United States Director of National Intelligence, James R. Clapper, told Congress that Syrian opposition groups have been infiltrated by Al-Qaeda, allegations that are confirmed by the leader of Al-Qaeda, Ayman-al-Zawahri declaring his support for the Syrian opposition, and exhorting Muslims in Turkey, Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan to aid the Syrian rebels.  The “Friends of Syria” pledge of support to the Syrian opposition is no less than support for increased action by terrorists, now unabashedly encouraged by the US commitment of aid to the Anti-Assad forces.

More here:  http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=30221