Austria says UK push to arm Syrian rebels would violate international law & Putin warns against actions fueling crisis in Syria

Forceful Austrian position signals deep EU divisions on Syria ahead of this month’s embargo decision

20130516-083522.jpg
Fighters from Islamist Syrian rebel group Jabhat al-Nusra take their positions on the front line during a clash with Syrian forces loyal to President Bashar al-Assad in Aleppo. Photograph: Ahmed Jadallah/Reuters/REUTERS

By Julian Borger, The Guardian

“Die Briten sind not amused,” is how Die Presse reported it today. “The Brits are not amused.” The Austrian foreign ministry circulated a discussion paper (known in Brussels jargon as a non-paper) among the EU member states yesterday forcefully rebutting British and French arguments for amending the European embargo on Syria to allow weapons shipments to the rebels.

Update: here is a link to an English version of the Austrian paper [click here]

The Austrian paper argues that lifting the embargo would “constitute a breach of international and EU law” and be contrary to the “principle of non-intervention and non-use of force” laid down in the UN Charter. If the weapons ended up in the hands of the al-Nusra Front, it would also violate UN Security Council resolutions on al-Qaida, given al-Nusra’s stated affiliation.

According to the Austrian press reports the UK asked the Austrians not to circulate the paper, but Vienna did it anyway – a sign of the declining clout of the UK in Brussels as the country sinks into an internecine quagmire on EU membership.

Austria has a particular reason for opposing the lifting of the arms embargo, as it has UN peacekeeping troops deployed in the line of fire on the Golan Heights, but sources in Brussels suggest the Austrians may also be expressing the views of a EU majority that has deep reservations over lifting the embargo, particularly at a time when there is at least the glimmer of diplomatic hope in the wake of the Kerry-Lavrov agreement to hold a new international conference on Syria.

Continue reading

DEUX SEMAINES DE LICENCIEMENTS D’AVRIL DE PLUS (ET BIENTOT UN AN), FRANÇOIS XVI TOUJOURS LÀ !

20130423-131242.jpg

Revue de Presse par Pierre Jovanovic © www.jovanovic.com 2008-2013

du 22 au 25 avril 2013 : Trois mastodontes qui ne devraient pas licencier licencient: VW, IBM, Siemens et Aviva UK. Vous l’avez compris, l’Allemagne et l’Angleterre sont gravement touchées et les conséquences ne devraient pas tarder à se faire sentir sur le plan social, je pense en septembre 2013. D’ici là, je vous annonce de nouveaux massacres dans le secteur automobile puisque les ventes sont en baisse constante depuis janvier 2013. La spirale est bien infernale. (JE RAPPELLE AUX LECTEURS QUI PRENNENT CETTE PAGE EN COURS DE ROUTE QUE LES MEGA-LICENCIEMENTS SONT SANS INTERRUPTION DEPUIS MAI 2012.)

- Aviva, assurances, va virer 2.000 salariés car la vie est très dure en ce moment, et que personne ne fait son chiffre, et que par conséquent il n’y a pas d’autres choix que de licencier. Lire Reuters ici.

- Siemens Allemagne vire 3.000 personnes lire ici Romandie , merci aux lecteurs

- IBM va virer entre 3000 et 5000 personnes, dont 1400 personnes en France. Pourquoi? “The company said it will reduce its work force in some areas to meet its per-share earnings target for this year of $16.70″ lire ici Marketwatch

- Un petit Franprix est en liquiditation judiciaire lire ici Courrier Picard , merci à Mr Lazarri

- Boeing va se séparer, encore, de 1700 ingénieurs “Boeing to cut up to 1700 engineering jobs, with up to 700 layoffs” lire ici Columbian

- La société Spanghero dépose le bilan, logique, les 300 salariés (qui n’ont pas de yeux ni d’odorat) iront au Pôle Emploi lire ici le Figaro , merci aux lecteurs

- Le conglomérat Saudi Basic Industries, ou Sabic, va supprimer 1.050 emplois et quitter l’Europe lire ici UE , merci au Capitaine

- Dans le Nord il y a 3.000 demandeurs du RSA de plus , lire ici la Voix du Nord, merci à Syldeg

- Volkswagen vire 500 personnes dans le Tennesse en raison de la baisse des ventes de la Passat lire ici USA Today

- Oshkosh Corp (défense camions etc.) vire 900 personnes lire ici American Machinist

- La chaîne des supermarchés Morrisson vire 700 personnes après avoir installé 700 machines pour prendre les pièces de monnaie, comme dans les boulangeries, lire ici The Grocer

- Avon licencie 400 personnes de plus, se retire de l’Irlande et prépare d’autres plans de licenciements en Europe lire ici Stockmarket

- General Motors Australie vire 500 personnes lire ici Fox

- Eli Lilly va virer 1.000 commerciaux !!!! lire ici le WSJ

- Pic de faillites dans la construction. De décembre 2012 à février 2013, exactement 508 pme ont déposé le bilan lire ici l’Avenir , merci à Ken

- Goss International France (rotatives d’imprimeries), 433 salariés, a été placé en redressement judiciaire lire ici FR3 , merci à mon lecteur

Continue reading

UK Man Wins Court Victory Over BBC for 9/11 Coverup Broadcast

Tony Rooke refused to pay a TV license fee because the BBC intentionally misrepresented facts about the 9/11 attacks, he alleged. It is widely known that the BBC reported the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 over 20 minutes before it occurred.

Activist Post

WTC 7 was a 47-story skyscraper that was not hit by a plane on 9/11 but collapsed at free-fall speed later that day.

So Rooke said the BBC had to have had prior knowledge to a terror attack making them complicit in the attack. He presented the BBC footage to the judge along with a slew of other evidence, and the judge agreed that Rooke had a reasonable case to protest. Rooke was found not guilty and he was not fined for failure to pay the licensing fee.

Below is the broadcast where the BBC announced the collapse of WTC 7 while it was still standing behind the reporter.

BBC Reports Collapse of WTC Building 7 Early

Tunisian Terrorists Are Now Confirmed Members of Syrian Death Squads

20130327-072206.jpg

By Brandon Turbeville, ACTIVIST POST

In yet another blow to the fragile and the entirely fabricated narrative pushed by the United States, NATO, and the Anglo-American powers, a recent broadcast of a Tunisian television program features firsthand accounts demonstrating that the Syrian “rebels” are actually nothing more than religious fanatics, mercenaries, and foreign fighters.

As reported by Salma Bouzid of Tusnisia Live, the Tunisian television show, Attasiaa Massaa, recently featured a clip of a young Tunisian man named Abou Zayd Attounssi who claims that he recently returned to Tunisia after fighting for eight months alongside the inappropriately named “Syrian rebels.”

Further supporting the fundamentalist nature of the majority of the members of the NATO death squads (aka rebels) operating in Syria, Attounssi stated that his initial reason for traveling to Syria to engage in murder, plunder, and torture against innocent people was because “he felt his religion required him to engage in jihad against ‘the enemy.’”

Although it was apparently not the killing that turned Attounssi off from the death squad movement, he nevertheless became disillusioned with it because, “most of the fighters within the Free Syrian army are fighting for the spoils of war and the foreign aid they supposedly get.”

Also featured on the show was the father of Hamza Rjeb, another former death squad member who is now disabled. Rjeb’s father claimed that “the Tunisian government should take full responsibility for his son’s situation and for allowing groups in the country to ‘brainwash’ his son.”

In an interview with Tunisia Live, Ahmed Youssef, a journalist described by Bouzid as “pro-Assad,” stated, “For every Tunisian fighter brought to Syria, Qatar pays 3,000 dollars to the Syrian rebels.” He also claimed that, “most of the Tunisians come from disadvantaged regions in Tunisia with low unemployment,” and stated that the Tunisians fighting in Syria are “considered mercenaries.” Youssef estimated that the number of Tunisian fighters wreaking havoc in Syria is more than 3,500.

Continue reading

UK has no immediate plans to arm Syria’s opposition – PM Cameron

Prime Minister David Cameron said the UK did not want to arm the rebels, but said the international community’s response to the crisis “hadn’t really worked”. His comments come just a day after the French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius told reporters that France and the UK would be willing to break the EU’s embargo on arming Syrian rebels.

Prime Minister David Cameron insisted that the UK had no immediate plans to arm Syria’s opposition. It came after EU leaders reacted coolly to a proposal from Cameron and the French Pres François Hollande for the EU’s embargo on sending arms to Syrian rebels to be lifted.

“As things stand today are not saying that Britain would actually like to supply arms to rebel groups. What we want to do is work with them and try to make sure that they’re doing the right thing. And with technical assistance we are able to do that.”

EU countries such as Germany, Austria and Sweden want to keep the embargo. German Chancellor Angela Merkel said she feels supplying rebels with the weapons would spark an arms race with the Syrian Government’s backers also increasing their supplies to it.

“We need to be careful that the other side is not also supplied with yet more weapons by other countries that don’t have the same attitude towards Bashar al-Assad as Germany and other member states of the European Union. That’s why for us it’s a very complicated issue. The Germany is ready in the views of certain member states change to discuss this further with foreign ministers.”

Nevertheless, Cameron said the international community’s response to the Syrian crisis hadn’t really worked and hinted that the UK could act unilaterally to supply weapons to rebels if such a step was deemed to be in Britain’s national interest. He dismissed fears that the weapons would end up in the wrong hands saying Jihadist groups inside Syria are already receiving weapons sent by their backers in the Arab world. And he argued a strong Syrian opposition was necessary to convince the Syrian Pres Bashar al-Assad of the need for a political solution.

“I think in fact we are more likely to see a political progress if actually people can see that the Syrian opposition, which we have now recognized, that we are walking with, is a credible and strengthening, and growing force.”

Fawaz Gerges is a Prof of Middle Eastern Politics and International Relations at the London School of Economics. He says Britain and France believe arming the rebels will achieve three distinct goals:

“They believe that Assad is receiving more weapons than the rebels, and if you reverse this balance of power, you would change the calculation of Pres Assad. This is point one.

Point two – Britain and France would like to reverse the balance of power within the armed opposition itself, away from the militant Jihadists to what they call religious nationalist moderate camps, like the Free Syrian Army. And they believe, both the Europeans and the Americans, that the Free Syrian Army, that the religious nationalists, moderates, armed oppositional is capable of making sure that the weapons do not fall into the wrong hands.

And finally, one of the major underlying reasons is that they want to have influence with the opposition in a post-Assad Syria. The idea is – how can you really influence the shape of the new Syria unless you provide arms to the opposition.”

But Prof Gerges says sending weapons to the rebels is unlikely to make the critical difference to the situation on the ground.

“What the opposition does not have is the following: they don’t have a centralized commandment control, there is no kind of unified position. Both in the political opposition and the armed opposition you have major cleavages and divisions between the nationalists and the radicals. Also what you have now within the opposition itself is that the opposition has not been able to create the critical mass that punctures holes in the President Assad’s system.

So, for a variety of reasons even if you provide more arms, if you don’t have unity, if you have chaos, if you have major cleavages within the opposition – the weapons won’t actually make the critical difference at the end of the day.”

Andrey Baklitsky, Project Director at the Russian Centre for Policy Studies, says Russia is likely to view British or French action to arm the rebels as unacceptable.

“While Russia is trying to bring the parties to the table and while there are clear signs on the part of the Assad’s regime, on the part of the Government to be willing to participate in the talks, at the very moment when this is happening providing rebels with weapons would be almost unacceptable for Russia.”

But Baklitsky says Russia would find it hard to increase its own transfers of military hardware to Syria.

“The vessels transporting the Russian weapons to Syria might be intercepted or stopped when entering ports or airports and so on. So, Russia cannot easily and in the short period of time send big amounts weapons into Syria. Of course now there is a little thing with Iran, I’m sure that Iran would proclaim that it openly supports Syria with weapons if Britain and France will do the same.”

The EU foreign ministers are expected to discuss the arms embargo on Syria again in Dublin next week. In May the EU is due to vote on whether to extend the embargo beyond its deadline of June 1.

Source: Voice Of Russia