Grand Prix faces turmoil in Bahrain

I've never been much of a car racing person let alone Formula 1 racing, but it's an extremely popular sporting event outside of the US. There's been a growing controversy over the race scheduled for Sunday and many have protested to force its cancellation. Bahrain's prince claims that the event is a "force for good" but others disagree. In an effort to chase big money in Middle East, Forumula 1 (and the possibly also the soccer World Cup) have put themselves in this position, siding with horribly repressive governments. If the event turns out to be a fiasco and they lose money, they only have themselves to blame. The Guardian:

The prime minister, David Cameron, responded: "Peaceful protest should be allowed to go ahead. But Bahrain is not Syria. There is a process of reform under way and this government backs that reform." The problem, Bahraini and foreign critics argue, is that key reforms recommended by a high-powered commission appointed by King Hamad Al Khalifa have not been implemented.Bahrain's claim to be a bastion of freedom in the Gulf was further tarnished when non-sports journalists were turned back at the airport or denied visas. Prince Salman said that was not his decision, hinting at rifts with hardliners including his uncle, who has been prime minister since independence from Britain in 1971.Last year's Bahrain Grand Prix was cancelled in the wake of the unprecedented protests that followed the Pearl Revolution, the Sunni-led monarchy's short-lived experience of the Arab spring, at an estimated cost of $480m-$800m (£500m). Around 50 people have been killed in unrest since then.

Chomsky: U.S. security requires something approaching absolute global control

I'm approaching a short trip, so posting will be light. But I want to put this up before I head out. Not that this — the headline statement — is surprising, but that it's said out loud.

This is from a recent set of pieces by Noam Chomsky printed at Alternet. I believe these are excepted from his new book, Making the Future: Occupations, Interventions, Empire and Resistance, a collection of commentaries on U.S. politics and policies, written between 2007 and 2011.

The piece at Alternet is in two parts. Its subject is America's self-inflicted decline and covers a lot of topics — George Kennan and the 1948 foreign policy decision; Vietnam; Iraq; South American democracy; China; the twins Israel & Palestine; and Iran. Here's Part 1; and here's Part 2.

This is from near the end of Part 2. It deals with Iran and includes some of the conclusion (my emphasis and some reparagraphing):

Let us turn finally to the third of the leading issues addressed in the establishment journals cited earlier, the “threat of Iran.” Among elites and the political class this is generally taken to be the primary threat to world order -- though not among populations.

In Europe, polls show that Israel is regarded as the leading threat to peace. In the MENA [Middle East/North Africa] countries, that status is shared with the U.S., to the extent that in Egypt, on the eve of the Tahrir Square uprising, 80% felt that the region would be more secure if Iran had nuclear weapons. The same polls found that only 10% regard Iran as a threat -- unlike the ruling dictators, who have their own concerns. ...

Why exactly is Iran regarded as such a colossal threat? The question is rarely discussed, but it is not hard to find a serious answer -- though not, as usual, in the fevered pronouncements. The most authoritative answer is provided by the Pentagon and the intelligence services in their regular reports to Congress on global security. They report that Iran does not pose a military threat. Its military spending is very low even by the standards of the region, minuscule of course in comparison with the U.S. ...

It makes very good sense to try to prevent Iran from joining the nuclear weapons states, including the three that have refused to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty -- Israel, India, and Pakistan, all of which have been assisted in developing nuclear weapons by the U.S., and are still being assisted by them. ...

[But] the primary threat to the U.S. and Israel is that Iran might deter their free exercise of violence. A further threat is that the Iranians clearly seek to extend their influence to neighboring Iraq and Afghanistan, and beyond as well.

Those “illegitimate” acts are called “destabilizing” (or worse). In contrast, forceful imposition of U.S. influence halfway around the world contributes to “stability” and order, in accord with traditional doctrine about who owns the world.

Then, after discussing the U.S. rule about coastal waters (we can come near yours; you can't come near ours), we find this (natural) conclusion:

This “classic security dilemma” makes sense, again, on the assumption that the U.S. has a right to control most of the world, and that U.S. security requires something approaching absolute global control.

Who can argue that this is how the U.S. and its military-minded supporters think? Chomsky and the militarists differ only in their justification (or lack of it) for these acts.

This is, after all, the fact assumed by American Exceptionalism, the belief that rocks many domestic boats, swells many heads with pride. In fact, this idea is almost mainstream, and usually applauded in its more carefully worded forms.

Noam Chomsky is not a popular guy, but (or because) it's hard to say where he's wrong. Read through and see if you don't agree with most or all of what he says.

GP

(To follow on Twitter or to send links: @Gaius_Publius)
 

UN criticizes Syria for failing to comply with cease fire

The UN is still trying to get the ceasefire back on track but it also still involves unarmed observers. The observer model has failed to deliver in Syria despite multiple attempts though with Russia on Assad's side, the options remain limited for the UN. With violence by the Syrian government continuing - even increasing - it's important for the world community to stay involved. More from The Guardian on the faltering peace process in Syria.

UN observers arrive in Syria as cease fire falters

The shelling of civilian targets hasn't stopped but maybe this next round of outside observers will help more than the initial round. With Assad's troops bombing Homs (again) he continues to show little regard for international authority. With friends like Russia, Syria knows that they have the flexibility needed to ignore world outrage. More from Al Jazeera.

Syria's Assad shelling Homs, breaking ceasefire

No surprise here.

Syrian forces shelled two central districts in the battered city of Homs throughout the night and into Saturday morning, a resident activist and a human rights group said, the first bombings since a ceasefire took hold on Thursday.

"There was shelling last night in the old part of the city, in Jouret al-Shiyah and al-Qaradis. And I have heard eight shells fall in the past hour," Karm Abu Rabea, a resident activist who lives in an adjacent neighbourhood, said on Saturday morning.

The British-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said shelling had wounded several people overnight.

Can the slide to war with Syria be stopped?

According to the public account the US and allies would very much like to take a more active role (i.e. start a war) against Syria and the only thing holding them back is the opposition of Russia and China in the UN security council. This has led Russia to put pressure on Syria which has in turn led the Syrian government to agree to a ceasefire which few people expect to last. Meanwhile Turkey is mobilizing its army in case the Syrian civil war spills further into their territory. There have already been shots fired across the border with Turkey and Lebanon and three people are dead as a result.

Now consider an alternative explanation of the same facts. Let us assume that the last thing Obama wants right now is to become involved in a new war at the start of a general election campaign. It was not Obama's idea to take action Libya, that was the work of Cameron and Sarkozy. Nor has the liberation of Libya been an unqualified strategic success for the US. It is certainly good for the war on terror, Gadaffi supplied bullets and bombs to terrorists while Bin Laden was still wearing diapers. But as with the fall of East Germany, the loss of a strategic enemy is always a disaster for the military-industrial complex: how can they justify their existence if peace were to accidentally break out?

The fall of Syria is certainly an unqualified lose-lose proposition for Iran, Israel and Russia. Iran would lose their principle regional ally and their post Iraq war claim to being the emerging regional super power. While this part would be good for Israel, the regime that replaces Assad is almost certain to be more hostile to Israel. Either it will be a democratic regime and the people will demand that it takes a hostile position or it will be a dictatorship and picking fights with Israel will be the likely method of distracting those discontented with the regime.

Russia would lose as the wave of governments being toppled by popular discontent spreads northwards towards the corrupt ex-Soviet satellites surrounding the Caspian Sea. Also the Russia faces the embarrassing position of having been on the losing side of every major international engagement they have been involved in since the defeat in Afghanistan. Since then they lost control of Western Europe, watched the breakup of the Soviet empire and picked the losing side in the Bosnian war and in Libya.

A war in Syria is the last thing any party would want right now. The outcome can only damage the interests of every party other than Turkey which is re-emerging as the real regional super power in the wake of the Arab Spring. But even in Turkey the civilian government cannot exactly be sure of the loyalty of the military which not so long ago was running the country as a dictatorship.

So another explanation of what we can observe is this: The Russian veto currently allows the US and allies to be vocal in their support of the Syrian opposition without the need to take any action against it. The government of Turkey is looking for excuses to avoid being dragged into the war and has agreed to overlook the insult to their territory in return for the current temporary ceasefire to allow humanitarian aid to be delivered into Homs.

The situation is a house of cards and there are numerous triggers that could bring it down. China is already disengaged and Russia is getting visibly tired of its role. The incursions into Turkey are becoming more frequent and at some point the Turkish government is going to find it hard to persuade the army to ignore the insult. If we get to that point, Turkey is almost certain to invoke the NATO charter under article 4 (consultation). But they may have the right to invoke article 5 (an attack on one is an attack on all) which would render the UN discussion moot.

We appear to be facing a long, slow slide into war against the will of almost every government concerned and it is very hard to see how it can be stopped. The one positive note is that it is highly unlikely that Russia would engage to protect the Assad regime but it will be yet another blow to their dignity.

Ceasefire in Syria, but doubts remain

At this point, a day or two of calm is helpful and Annan is right that it might help bring in relief supplies. But long term, there is little chance of this holding or being a meaningful ceasefire. Al Jazeera:

The deadline has passed for a ceasefire in Syria to come into effect as part of a peace plan proposed by Kofi Annan, the UN-Arab League peace envoy, but Western leaders have already expressed doubts about whether the Syrian government will honour the deal.

Syria told Kofi Annan in a letter that it would halt all fighting by Thursday morning but reserved the right to respond to any attack by "armed terrorist groups".

Since rebels, loosely organised across Syria's provinces, do not obey a set chain of command, there is no guarantee they will obey the ceasefire either.

Syria failing to withdraw troops as agreed

It's not much of a surprise that Assad is a liar and will continue the bloodshed in Syria. The only surprise is that anyone believed Assad would live up to his word. The Guardian:

Hopes for a peaceful end to the Syrian crisis were fading rapidly on Sunday after President Bashar al-Assad refused to meet Tuesday's deadline for withdrawing his forces from flashpoints across the country without guarantees from the opposition to stop fighting first.

Kofi Annan, the former UN secretary-general, had called for a pullout to be completed by Tuesday morning with a ceasefire taking effect 48 hours later as the first stage in a six-point international plan for political negotiations between the Assad regime and its opponents.

Amid evidence of continuing government operations, Syria's foreign ministry said it was demanding written guarantees that "armed terrorist groups" would lay down their weapons.

UN human rights chief: Syria targeting children

One can only hope that those ordering these attacks are eventually brought to justice. What kind of a coward does this? BBC News:

Syrian authorities are deliberately and systematically targeting children, the United Nations' human rights chief, Navi Pillay, has told the BBC.

She said she was deeply concerned about the fate of hundreds of children being held in detention.

Ms Pillay said President Bashar al-Assad could end the detentions and stop the killing of civilians immediately, simply by issuing an order.

Obama waives democracy requirement for aid to Egypt

After the Mubarak years, is this a bad idea or sensible short term politics? Long term it's critical that Egypt is both friendly, but also democratic. Washington Post:

The Obama administration told Congress on Thursday it will waive democracy requirements to release up to $1.5 billion in aid to Egypt despite concerns that the country is backsliding on commitments it made to democratic governance and rule of law.

U.5 officials and lawmakers said Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has determined that it was in the U.S. national interest to allow $1.3 billion in military assistance to flow. She also certified that Egypt is meeting its obligations to the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty, which frees up an additional $200 million in economic aid, they said.

A senior State Department official said the decisions “reflect our overarching goal: to maintain our strategic partnership with an Egypt made stronger and more stable by a successful transition to democracy.”

Assad's emails leaked

The Guardian reports that they have obtained copies of Assad's private email:

Bashar al-Assad took advice from Iran on how to handle the uprising against his rule, according to a cache of what appear to be several thousand emails received and sent by the Syrian leader and his wife.

The Syrian leader was also briefed in detail about the presence of western journalists in the Baba Amr district of Homs and urged to "tighten the security grip" on the opposition-held city in November.

The revelations are contained in more than 3,000 documents that activists say are emails downloaded from private accounts belonging to Assad and his wife Asma.

As is usually the case in these situations the initial disclosures mostly confirm what we already knew but besides the thuggery and the bragging there is the banality of the wife's demands for crystal chandeliers and fondue sets in the midst of a civil war.

We have no way to know whether the emails are genuine or fake but many of the major intelligence services monitoring Syria will have a pretty good idea. It takes a lot of information to produce a forgery that would withstand cross checking with the volumes of information they have on file [1].

The opinion of the emails that is likely to matter is that formed by Russia's GRU. According to the US establishment media Russia is the principal force blocking UN action against Syria. Which is the truth but not necessarily the whole truth. A cynic might suggest that with the Libyan civil war just finished and the war in Afghanistan continuing, the Obama administration would prefer to have its hands being tied by the Russians than charge into what could be a messy situation in an election year. Should Russia decide to change that position, the emails would provide a convenient pretext.

[1] Dissatisfied by the opinion of the CIA analysts who dismissed evidence of Iraqi WMD as clearly spurious, the Bush administration had to create a new intelligence unit (Feith's Office of Special Plans) to pronounce the evidence compelling. Unlike Feith, the CIA analysts could spot that it was rather unlikely that Iraqi plans for nuclear technology would use Farsi, the language of Iran.