EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
What the Killing of Gaddafi Means to Syria
Two days before Gaddafi was murdered, I was reading the morning newspapers in Beirut and discovered a remarkable story on most front pages.
At the time, the mad ex-emperor of Libya was still hiding in Sirte, but there was this quotation by the US Secretary of State, La Clinton, speaking in Tripoli itself. "We hope he can be captured or killed soon," she said, "so that you don't have to fear him any longer." This was so extraordinary that I underlined La Clinton's words and clipped the article from one of the front pages. (My archives are on paper.) "We hope he can be captured or killed soon." Then bingo. Nato bombs his runaway convoy and the old boy is hauled wounded from a sewage pipe and done away with.
Now in an age when America routinely assassinates its enemies, La Clinton's words were remarkable because they at last acknowledged the truth. Normally, the State Department or the White House churned out the usual nonsense about how Gaddafi or Bin Laden or whoever must be "brought to justice" – and we all know what that means. But this week, the whole business turned much darker. Asked about his personal reaction, Obama the Good said that no one wanted to meet such an end, but that Gaddafi's death should be a lesson "to all dictators around the world". And we all knew what that meant. Principally, the message was to Bashar al-Assad of Syria. Maybe, ran the subtext, they would meet the same sticky end.
So now here I am in Damascus and I've been asking Syrians what they made of the whole business. Whenever I said Gaddafi was a crackpot, they would wholeheartedly agree. But when I spoke to a very senior government official who works directly for the Syrian leadership, he spoke in slightly different terms. "We don't accept any comparisons," he said. "But the seriousness of Gaddafi's killing is that in the West in the future, they are going to say: 'See how the Libyans behave? See how the Arabs behave? See how Muslims behave?' This will be used against Islam. It was humiliating for the Libyans more than it was for Gaddafi, and that is why I fear it will be used against all of us. This is my real concern."
On Syrian television this week, I made the point that Gaddafi was insane and that – whatever else you thought of him – Assad was not. This was met (naturally) by vigorous agreement from the presenter. But wait. I promised to tell readers what happened to the programme. Well, two days ago, quite by chance, I bumped into the journalist who had interviewed me. Alas, he said, he thought the translation and subtitles wouldn't be ready for Saturday night's broadcast. Maybe we could do another interview later. Back to that old saw, I guess: we shall see.
In any event, I was made very much aware by her own personal assistant how "deeply hurt" Bashar al-Assad's wife Asma was at a report in The Independent a couple of weeks ago which suggested that she was indifferent to the plight of civilian opponents of the regime killed by the security forces. The story – not by me – quoted an aid official in Damascus who was present at a meeting with the First Lady, saying that – when asked about the casualties – "there was no reaction".
Needless to say, this report was gobbled up by the Arab media, including al-Jazeera, Assad's most hated TV station. Now Asma al-Assad's assistant has just given me the Syrian Arab Red Crescent's own official Arabic-language account of the meeting. It makes interesting reading. SARC volunteers told the president's wife that they received better treatment from the army "which has a clear leadership" than they did from the intelligence services at the checkpoints across Syria – they said the "muhabarrat" intelligence "enjoys no leadership or clear principles, at least from our point of view" – and that vehicles from the Ministry of Health are sometimes misused by "parties without control and this has created a situation of fear among citizens". Mrs Assad was told how difficult it was for the SARC to work in dangerous areas and to move the wounded.
"Mrs Asma [sic] showed her understanding of the difficulties our volunteers are going through," the SARC report says, "and expressed her deep admiration for their efforts in serving humanity and individual people ... and promised to convey some of their demands to the authorities." Mrs Assad's visit was "informal" and the discussions "friendly".
In the days that followed, the SARC report continued, the behaviour of "security checkpoints" towards their volunteers improved. A subsequent report in the weekly Syria Today quotes Mrs Assad as telling the Red Crescent volunteers that they "must remain neutral and independent during this time, focusing solely on humanitarian needs".
So there you have it. Certainly not indifferent – but hardly a ringing condemnation of human rights abuses. Of course, I can see Asma al-Assad's problem. Had she spoken out directly against the killing of protesters, of course, the world's press and television would not have said that Mrs Assad stood up for human rights. The headlines would have been political, and would have read: "Syrian President attacked by wife." The truth, I fear, is that once war begins, you just can't win. Even if you are the wife of the president.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
43 Comments so far
Show AllGood one, Raven.
Most of the poetry I see on CD is not really poetry. It's merely stuff stuffed into rhyme, and should be better said in prose. But not this. This is good. Thank you.
I often think of "The Third Man."
twototango,
Yes, as long as the love of power is greater among humans than the power of love, there is no hope.
Good as always, aka. "Twototango". And welcome back.
Beautiful. Poignant. I hope that you might consider re-releasing numbers 14 through 18 as I have unfortunately missed out on them; likely because some jackass had you deleted again. I missed you.
I believe that it is said that between 5 and 10% of the human population on earth is "white" and therefore, 90%+ is not. But I know that there is only 1% that are "white" and it has nothing to do with their skin color (or lack thereof) but their megalomanic drive to dominate, deceive, enslave, and destroy.
To my fellow people of caucasoid origin, I would say resign from this "white" classification. They are only using you to hide amongst as a buffer and a future scapegoat. You are beige members of the brown race- the HUMAN race, and it's high time to realize it and live it. These "white" creatures are only bent on ruining God's garden. Open your hearts, your minds, your EYES and EARS. "Others" have wisdom and value, too. You need to relearn your humanity.
Raven, you are somebody I wish that I could meet in person. Stay strong.
Thank you; I will!
"...there is only 1% that are "white" and it has nothing to do with their skin color..."
Very perceptive. We're getting to that point where there's the 1-3 % superrich, plus the "white trash" (or rather pink) and "brown" people - "The Expendables".
Still, all that could be fixed by putting into Corporate Law what used to be the tacit premise, that the grander societal aim of any company or corporation is "the general welfare" (as stated in the preamble to the US Constitution) before profit - and holding businesses to it ("aye, there's the rub").
That would put a limit on the tendencies for greed and gluttony inherent in everyone.
That trait of "deadly sin" - according to common wisdom and hailed even in that old-fashioned psychotic book "The Bible" - is developed into the ridiculous in a small minority. Greed and gluttony becomes dominant social traits then passed on to friends and family, in a "self-delusion circle" upheld by all involved. This kind of circle works through referring to someone equally deluded within the circle, with none of them able or willing to spot the self-referential quality of the justifications for the greed and gluttony (or whatever other notion the circle justifies) over general welfare.
The delusions become internalised in the individuals involved in the "self-delusion circle", and only experienced as shared eagerness for the same limited ends.
A criterion for such a self-delusion circle to work is that the circle of people is not perceived by them as a circle, but only as "what everyone thinks". It takes only three people at minimum, but may involve millions. The more the merrier - and stronger.
To get back to the issue: finding it justified to kill off nation-leaders like Gaddafi exhibits clear evidence of such a "self-deluded circle" behind it - however deliberate it is.
I bet they say to each other - la Clinton, Sarcozy, Cameron et al - that "to maintain international peace" according to UN Charter, Article 42, really means keeping the West's trade-systems and economic dominance intact. Then they all think and reply: "Yeah, that's what I heard, too" - not mentioning that they all had the same third person, e.g. Henry Kissinger, as source for the self-deluded notion.
Robert Fisk is only 65 years old, but sometimes he's starting to sound somewhat senile, especially when he appears on TV, looking all impatient, huffing and puffing if he happens to be in some kind of a debate. He simply cannot avoid using terms such as 'crackpot', 'insane', etc., referring to Gaddafi. In an earlier article on CD ("Libya: The Wearingly Familiar Odor of Regime Change" - www.commondreams.org/view/2011/03/19-8 ), he had to say this:
>>"Yes, Gaddafi is completely bonkers, flaky, a crackpot on the level of Ahmadinejad of Iran and Lieberman of Israel ... The Middle East seems to produce these ravers – as opposed to Europe, which in the past 100 years has only produced Berlusconi, Mussolini, Stalin and the little chap who used to be a corporal in the 16th List Bavarian reserve infantry, but who went really crackers when he got elected in 1933..."<<
And here he is, certifying that Assad is not insane. And he goes to some great lengths to make the point that Assad's wife is NOT "indifferent to the plight of civilian opponents of the regime killed by the security forces".
So, some 3,000 protesters killed does not make a dictator, whose ruthlessness is not in any doubt, somewhat insane, because Fisk says so? I am NOT saying that the western criminal nations should intervene in Syria as they did in Libya. But who is Robert Fisk to certify one dictator as NOT insane, while calling others 'crackpot', 'insane', 'gone bonkers', 'flaky', and so on?
I know Robert Fisk does not condone western aggressors. But what's with the loose language when talking about certain rulers in the Middle East? He should know that the world has suffered MUCH LESS due to the alleged insanity of these 'crackpots' than due to the psychopathic actions of some polished, sophisticated criminals from certain western nations.
Lashe, I suggest you read my **whole** post again, this time slowly... :)
Fisk says 'Khadaffi was insane' as if that's a given without Any Evidence to back up his claim [usually you hear Khadaffi was a Tyrant]. BUT- How about this for InSanity - Its is insane for someone to ASS Rape a 70 yr old man, who was the leader of a Nation, w a knife, torture & slaughter him all while video-taping it & then put it on the Internet! It's insane for the Sec of State- & ex-First 'Lady' no less- of the so-called greatest Nation on Earth to then Joke about all of This by saying 'I came, I Saw, He Died' Ha, Ha, Ha! - Like some Damned Sick Joke! It's Insane for the so-called first Black Pres [an supposed son of an African no less - w the help of a Black US Ambassador to the UN no less] to perhaps be the first US Pres to Aggressively [as in unprovoked] Attack & OPENLY wage WAR on an African Country- all the while denying it was a war -&- to support Libyan rebels who have targeted, Ethnically-Cleansed, Brutalized & LYNCHED Blacks in Libya! Its insane for these so-called Libyan freedom fighters [NOT!] to hold the French Pres- a known anti-Muslim BIGOT, & the Italians- who under El Duce' {the doushe bag} Mussolini slaughtered half the population of Libya- as Heroes for a so-called newly 'Freed' Libya!
Khadaffi may have been a bit eccentric [but African & Muslim people would seem a bit 'different' to most western white folk], but compared to these so-called 'champions' [IE: vile cast of characters] of a 'New' Libya...
"What the Killing of Gaddafi Means to Syria"
The crucial point Fisk makes in this article - before veering off into Mrs. Assad - is this:
"America routinely assassinates its enemies. (...) [T]his week, the whole business turned much darker."
The UN Charter, Article 42: "...to maintain or restore international peace and security." - rutinely breached by NATO-USA. "To maintain peace" now curiously meaning "to wage war" - but not even called "war" anymore, only "military action" - and any political disagreement to being subservient to NATO-USA seen as "disturbing the peace and security". People murdered at will without any semblance of due process, and not an eyelid battered inside the propaganda-stream. Murders by some militarily stronger states inside other states presented as normal, justified and right. Might replacing Right as the formal standard for international conduct, after double-standards on human rights became untenable. - This is the new reality post-Gaddafi.
Even though it for now works in favor of "our side", we should be very scared. It means only those actively and loudly embracing the Powers in Place are protected by the human and civil rights the people in the global West have so far taken for granted.
When the sycophants find themselves out of favor they'll no longer have any external rights to appeal to. This is not something that "may happen", but is happening right now: Bradley Manning thought he was safe being part of the military. Just as Gaddafi thought he was safe being in the West's favor - after having paid billions to get there.
Neutral facts and neutral thinking doesn't count anymore, apparently.
In the UN Security Council the best hope for the voters of the West lies in the resistance by Russia and China. - Who'd've thunk it'd come to that?
Interesting. Even Syrians realized Gaddafi was a nutball. His Amazonian bodyguards (who FAILED in their duties), amazing fashion sense, fear of flying over water, dragging his "humble" bedouin tent all over the globe, etc. Appears most on the "Arab Street" were well aware gaddafi wasn't playing with a full deck....As for Assad, bet he's checking to make sure his passport is current and his wife is probably and quietly discussing "options" with her London based attorney....
Chavez is definitely on the hit list of the Empire.
Twototango gives us an ugly image of a "dreamer" spinning fantasies "crouched on top of huge reserves of water and oil," without mentioning the way those reserves are being used to provide health care, education, food, and dignity to millions of Venezuelans. Of course the Venezuelan opposition hate Chavez. They want themselves to crouch on top of those "huge reserves of water and oil" and to spend the proceeds on shopping trips to Miami the way they did in the good old days. The Empire supplies them with millions for "transition initiatives," and prepares for the day when they can murder Chavez.
Common Dreams clearly does not report on the many positive things happening in Venezuela, and runs only ambiguous or negative stories on this fascinating attempt to bring about socialism in a democratic, non-violent way.
The Bolivarian revolution is far more complicated than the simplistic picture of a "populist" who somehow hypnotizes and/or bribes people to vote for him time after time. There are millions of Venezuelans involved in the process, and a lot of debate and struggle within the movement to bring about socialism of the twenty-first century--to discover what it can be.
Latin America is well ahead of the rest of the world in the struggle to find a way out of the mess that Imperialism has got us into. It is time for Common Dreams to wake up and start reporting sympathetically about the truly encouraging developments both in countries where progressive forces have state power and in countries where they are effectively opposing the empire and its local neoliberal representatives.
Caracas, Venezuela has the highest per capita murder rate in the world. Venezuela
travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1059.html
You might want to pick another example of successful socialism. I'd look to Scandinavia.
True.
Still doesn't explain that murder rate does it.....
But the cocaine fueled drug war sponsored by certain governments could help to explain some of it.
As always correlation doesn't imply causation...
Murder rate competition is rather morbid.
Cheers a los Latinos.
Yes. Get factual info on the vetoed UN SC vote Oct. 4 in the article
"Building a Pretext to Wage War on Syria: Hidden Agenda Behind UN Security Council Resolution":
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=27344
Isn't it convenient that virtually all the leaders on the West's hit list happen to be 'mad'? I've watched several interviews by Gaddafi, read some of his writings, and analysed much of his leadership track record on Libya (taking it from 4th poorest nation in the world in 1969 to highest standard of living in Africa and within the top 25th percentile on the World Human Development Index in 2010). After observing all this, the one word I would never use to describe Gaddafi is 'mad'. Eccentric, larger than life, mercurial, passionate - yes. But, mad - no.
"America routinely assassinates its enemies." It's such a Christian country.
What did Jesus Christ say? Love your enemies was it not? Christians, eh?
so, what does the killing of g'daffy mean to Syria?
Believe it or not, I think the point was that with Gaddafi meeting his end the way he did, the West had somehow insulted Islam, and that if the Syrian dictator were to meet a similar end, the West would be facing a more radicalized Islamic Middle East. That was my take anyway.
In the west's mind, attacking and killing arabs and muslims is the most natural thing in the world. The military supremacy over them is so complete that all other options are unnecessary and dismissed. Foreign policy towards arabs and muslims usually begins with "all options are on the table". And the MSM and propaganda trolls drive, confirm and amplify that mindset with manufactured news at every opportunity. The era of the lie is afoot.
What will Madame Clinton resort to next? She obviously sanctioned the killing of Gaddafi (Khadafi in the rest of the world). I absolutely do not "get it". British Petroleum invested 16 Billion Pounds in Libya before this war, with Khadafi the Head of State of Libya during that investment. Did we trade BP's promise to pay for its negligence in the Gulf of Mexico for our invasion of Libya (without Congressional approval!)? All of this history with Libya stinks to high heaven of treason.
So what is happening with Hillary and her affiliation with Whitewater?
I get it. No ARAB country is losing sleep over Libya, but we Americans should be because what has been done in our name and in the name of democracy is a sham. We bombarded Libya without Congressional approval (Obama should have to shell out from his personal finances for that), we accepted that we had a vested interest in doing so, when, in fact, we didn't, and we defied all international laws and the laws of our own country to do so.
It's sloppy journalism to call anyone 'mad'. I believe that torturers like Bush and Cheney are mad. However, it doesn't further the discussion to say it. What appears to be mad behaviour might be infinitely intelligent depending on the social context and world view of the subject. There was a special form of "madness" that many Black slaves of the US supposedly had that was called "draptomania." This was the madness of the slave who wanted to be free! And do you know what the physical side effects of this madness was? Welts on the body. Talk about a set up.
Regarding the comment earlier about violence in Venezuela: I remember how people used to try to negate all of the excellent things about Swedish socialism by pointing out that the suicide rate in Sweden was one of the highest in the world. Then it finally came out that it was so high simply because the Swedish government defined suicide in a different way, so the high rate was just an artifact of definition.
Unfortunately the murder rate in Venezuela is no artifact, it is real. But the Swedish example points out how easy it is to make a glib rhetorical point by taking one statistic as though it told the whole story.
In fact the homicide rate varies a lot from place to place in Venezuela. They have a system similar to ours, where states and municipalities have their own police forces. The states of Zulia and Nueva Esparta both have governors who oppose Chavez, and they have homicide rates well above the national average. The municipalities of Chacao and Baruta, strongholds of the opposition within greater Caracas, have increasingly high homicide rates, while the municipality of Libertador, also in greater Caracas and governed by Chavistas, has had a decrease in the homicide rate.
Venezuela is a democracy, with independent branches of government. One of the biggest problems facing the president and the legislature is the corruption and inefficiency of the independent judiciary. The National Assembly can have some influence over it, but there is still plenty of inertia from decades ago. If Chavez were a dictator, as he is portrayed on Fox News, he could change it all by fiat. In fact he follows the constitutional process quite scrupulously.
Still, there are serious efforts underway. A while ago the salaries of police were tripled, which removed at least some of the incentive to take bribes. Under the old system police were paid very little, since it was assumed that they would make enough via corruption. A national police academy has been established, and in the neighborhoods where graduates are deployed crime rates drastically drop.
Venezuela has a very mixed economy at this point, with capitalism thriving alongside of gradually increasing socialist enterprise. The Bolivarian revolution has been strictly non-violent and has not expropriated capitalists without fair compensation. You don't turn around a society overnight, at least not if you stick to legal, democratic methods.
It should be noted, by the way, that the big media, with 85% of the share of the television audience, are still in the hands of the same kind of purveyors of consumerism, violence, and individualism as the ones who run the media in this country. This does not help much in reducing violence.
Again, glib one-liners do not provide real understanding. If only Common Dreams were not so strangely reluctant to provide real information about the complexity of making a revolution happen democratically! There are lessons for us in Venezuela and all over Latin America.