back  print COLUMNISTS The New Draft UN Security Council Resolution on Syria. A Refined Version of Clumsy Work Alexander MEZYAEV | 22.02.2014 | 00:00 Last week, several countries initiated a new draft UN Security Council resolution on Syria. Officially, Australia, Luxembourg and Jordan – all non-permanent members of the UN Security Council – were the instigators, although the authorship of three Western powers, the US, Great Britain and France – all permanent members of the Security Council – is not being hidden. The draft resolution was initially submitted to a panel of experts for discussion and after just a couple of days, UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator Valerie Amos also began lobbying for the resolution. Amos joined the anti-Syrian coalition back in November last year, when she started holding monthly briefings at which she constantly spoke of the worsening humanitarian situation in Syria.  It is clear that the humanitarian situation in Syria is catastrophic. According to official UN statistics, from October 2013 through to January 2014, the number of fatalities in the Syrian war increased by 36 percent (from 100,000 to 136,000, of which 11,000 were children); the number of refugees increased by 11 percent (from 2.2 to 2.5 million); and the number of internally displaced persons increased by 55 percent (from 4.2 to 6.5 million). Nearly 10 million people are in need of humanitarian aid, especially the quarter of a million people living in besieged cities and villages. Amos’ unique position lies in the fact that the government of the Syrian Arab Republic is exclusively to blame. It is difficult not to notice that the anti-Syrian motives in the work of the UN Under-Secretary-General arose at almost exactly the same time as the successful process began to liquidate Syria’s chemical weapons and intensified with the start of the Geneva II peace talks. It was also at this time that preparation of the new draft UN Security Council resolution began.  The Western draft resolution was initially submitted to Russia and China on 6 February, and its discussion at a meeting of the Council’s permanent members was planned for the very next day. Russian and Chinese representatives did not attend this meeting, justifiably regarding the rush to discuss the resolution as pressure. Neither did they attend the meeting on 10 February. Later, however, China made an elegant diplomatic move by agreeing to meet with the draft resolution’s sponsors separately (so only with representatives of Australia, Luxembourg and Jordan). After the meeting, the Chinese representative declared that the actions of the UN Security Council could hinder the Geneva II peace talks currently under way. Russia has refused to discuss the draft resolution at all. The Russian representative has stated that the proposed text is not even suitable as a basis for further discussion. He added that the draft resolution is of no benefit whatsoever and that it is essential to focus on the issue of terrorism.  So what exactly have the UN Security Council’s Western members and their allies suggested?  Firstly, the draft resolution has set a deadline for the full implementation of the Geneva Communiqué of 30 June 2012. Let us look at the text of this communiqué. It contains rather a lot of points, but the most important one isthe transfer of political power. (1) Secondly, the draft resolution requires the Syrian government to fully implement the so-called 2 October 2013 presidential statement by President Bashar al-Assad. The draft resolution also calls for the full implementation of provisions in other documents. Thus a new tactic has been chosen by the Security Council’s Western members. While previous draft resolutions vetoed by Russia and China were notable for their clumsiness and heavy-handed pressure, now the situation has changed considerably. The new draft resolution supports the West’s primary objective much more subtlely than the anti-Syrian draft resolutions periodically submitted to the UN Security Council in the past. This objective is to discredit Russia in the international arena whilst at the same time discrediting the UN as an organisation that has allegedly lost the ability to fulfil its own functions of maintaining international peace and security... (2)  At present, the text is not so heavy-handed and, most importantly, it addresses a number of Russia’s permanent objections to previous draft resolutions. For example, the new draft resolution condemns the use of sieges, and calls for neutrality in the provision of medical assistance to all sides of the conflict. The new draft resolution also condemns terrorism and the participation of foreign militants (although they are referred to rather neutrally as «foreign fighters»). In the same section, there is also a call for the opposition to maintain its rejection of terrorism. After being lulled into a false sense of security by these calls and condemnations, the following section on terrorism urges Hezbollah to immediately withdraw from Syria. Gradually, however, the ostentatious objectivity of the draft resolution’s sponsors disappears, as the text once again condemns arbitrary detention and torture «in Syrian prisons», so pointing the finger at the authorities rather than the militants. It should be noted that «arbitrary detention» and «torture» can be both ordinary crimes and international crimes. If it is peacetime, then it is an ordinary crime and is prosecuted according to the internal law of the state. However, if the crime is committed during armed conflict (especially an international conflict), then it becomes an international crime and as such is subject to the jurisdiction of international criminal courts. The same objective is served by the draft resolution’s reference to «the use of starvation as a method of combat». This has clearly been taken from provisions in the Geneva Conventions of 1949 for the protection of war victims, and is therefore an attempt to drag the International Criminal Court into the Syrian conflict. Which is to say that by mentioning «torture in Syrian prisons» and «the use of starvation as a method of combat», the legal preparations are being made to transfer the situation in Syria over to the International Criminal Court (ICC). This move has been made with the expectation that if Russia uses her veto during the vote to transfer the situation in Syria over to the ICC, it will damage Russia’s reputation, portraying her as a country which is supposedly preventing «the punishment of persons guilty of committing international crimes» and hampering the fight against the «humanitarian catastrophe» in Syria. Finally, the draft resolution contains a reference to the use of force. So, a 15-day deadline has been set for all the demands of the UN Security Council’s Western powers to be met. If the demands are not met, the draft resolution refers to the possibility of introducing «measures under Article 41 of the UN Charter». This article covers a rather wide spectrum of measures which are all essentially sanctions. Article 41 of the UN Charter states that «the Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.» As we can see, the list of possible sanctions is quite diverse and, most importantly, it is not closed, so the Council could also adopt any other measures. With good reason, Russia and China rejected the draft resolution, not allowing the Security Council to be used as a tool to escalate the conflict. It is interesting that nearly every member of the UN Security Council that had officially and unofficially developed the draft resolution (3) approached the UN General Assembly at one and the same time, thereby creating a parallel discussion of their draft resolution. One would certainly not call such a step elegant work. Such actions by the UN Security Council members who penned the new anti-Syrian (and anti-Russian) draft resolution are in direct violation of the UN Charter, Article 12 of which states that: «While the Security Council is exercising in respect of any dispute or situation the functions assigned to it in the present Charter, the General Assembly shall not make any recommendation with regard to that dispute or situation unless the Security Council so requests.»  The new draft resolution on Syria is just a slightly ground down version of exactly the same clumsy work that the West has been busy with at the UN Security Council over the last few years. (1) For the text of the Geneva Communiqué, please see: Action Group for Syria. Final Communiqué. 30.06.2012  (2) The US has been nurturing plans to dismantle the UN for a long time and create an alternative international organisation without Russia and her right to veto. (3) The group of sponsors was made up of Australia, Luxembourg, Jordan, France, Britain and the US, but was 'watered down' for propriety's sake with Saudi Arabia and several other Arab countries.

A Few Words on the Incomplete Sovereignty of Germany

Natalia MEDEN | 19.02.2014 | 00:00

German Foreign Minister F.-W. Steinmeier arrived in Moscow like an old acquaintance. At a joint press conference with his guest, Sergei Lavrov affirmed that Moscow and Berlin have no problems that are not open for discussion. This statement emphasizes the trusting nature of existing relations and is in tune with the interview with the German minister published the day before the visit in the Russian newspaper Kommersant. However, if there is still complete mutual understanding between the long-time partners, why is the German press calling the visit a «complex mission» and comparing it to «walking on the edge of the abyss»? (1)  In the current government of Germany, F.-W. Steinmeier has the greatest experience in communicating with Russian partners, comparable only to that of A. Merkel. Keep in mind that Steinmeier first held the post of foreign minister from 2005-2009, in Merkel's first cabinet, which like the current cabinet consisted of representatives of the CDU/CSU and the Social Democrats. It has been argued that at that time, in opposition to the chancellor, he actively advocated development of bilateral relations with Russia, proposing the conception of «Cooperation for Modernization». While Merkel, who had declared her foreign policy priority to be developing transatlantic partnership, did not publicly criticize Steinmeier's proposal, she was skeptical about it. She presumed that Russia was not going anywhere; that it needs Western technology in any case, including for the extraction of the oil and gas it exports; and that Russia would be afraid to turn completely toward China, considering the demographic vulnerability of Siberia and the Far East.  What has changed since then? While social democrat Steinmeier was in the parliamentary opposition, German diplomacy, led by Guido Westerwelle, did not propose any new ideas on the Russian front. A lot of space is devoted to Russia in the coalition agreement signed at the creation of the current federal government, but this mostly testifies to the coalition participants' lack of a unified strategy. The ideas set down in the agreement are good in and of themselves: open dialog and broad cooperation. However, is there a practical program behind these declarations, or at least a general conception? G. Schroeder had such a conception; in the book Clear Words, presented in Berlin on February 14 of this year, he says that only together with Russia can the EU and Europe be a counterbalance to the U.S. or China (2).  Today leading German politicians are distancing themselves from the «culture of restraint» attributed to Westerwelle. Germany cannot be a big Switzerland, declares the Social Democratic Party's expert on foreign and security policy J. Janning (3). Today, Germany's more active foreign policy means increasing German presence in Africa and supporting the anti-government demonstrations of the Ukrainian opposition. It makes one wonder what's next. In what parts of the world will Germany take responsibility, and what actions will it take there? Russia's place in the new coordinates of German foreign policy has obviously not yet been determined. And while the Merkel doctrine (developing transatlantic partnership) remains in force, one cannot count on the success of the dialog between Berlin and Moscow. And that is just what the first Russian visit of the foreign minister from Merkel's third cabinet has shown.  If the German side sees the recent visit as constructive, so much the worse. At Steinmeier's negotiations in Moscow, Berlin's only suggestion was to invite the OSCE to be a mediator in Ukraine. Moscow did not accept this suggestion, considering previous negative experience of the OSCE's mediation activities in resolving «frozen conflicts» in the former Soviet Union. It seems that this is exactly what Berlin was expecting  Steinmeier's meeting with his Russian colleague turned out to be fruitless. Its only accomplishment was an exchange of opinions. Steinmeier said as much when he stated that meeting and discussing problems is better than remaining silent. But the German minister responded to Lavrov's criticism regarding intervention in the internal affairs of Ukraine during the joint press conference with silence. What is that, a sign of agreement or unwillingness to enter into a dialog? To start with, it would have been appropriate for the German minister to somehow indicate his position on his predecessor Guido Westerwelle taking a walk on the Maidan with the Klitschko brothers; Westerwelle was the first Western politician to thus demonstrate his support for the antigovernment forces in Ukraine. Gernot Erler, the current coordinator of the German office for foreign policy on Russia, the Eastern Partnership and Central Asia, considers Westerwelle's act a mistake (4). Does Mr. Steinmeier share this opinion? That is unknown, as he eloquently refrained from commenting. Just as he did not say a word about the recording of V. Nuland'sscandalous telephone conversation.  But Steinmeier was not shy about expressing his indignation at how Russia had taken advantage of Ukraine's plight. Immediately after taking office he gave Moscow a lecture, calling its actions «completely outrageous». This was in reference to the Russian president's decision to give Ukraine a 15 billion dollar loan and a discount on the price of gas. As H.-H. Schroeder, a leading German expert on Eastern politics (from the government-connected Stiftung für Wissenschaft und Politik) summed up: «Steinmeier...makes sure that he does not say anything too positive about Russia» (5). And how does this style jibe with the assertion that «We can't do without Russia», which the minister expressed at the conference in Munich and repeated in his article in the weekly Focus? (6)  It seems that the reason for such dualism is that Berlin wants to avoid new complications which could arise with regard to transatlantic partnership. At the same time, it does not want a confrontation with Russia. In general, it wants to arrange things such that it can make money and still stay out of trouble. Any changes in Berlin's foreign policy are jealously monitored by the U.S. The phrase «Germany has been a problem» (7), uttered on the spur of the moment by the head of the Pentagon, speaks volumes. And the Germans, of course, understand how limited their possibilities are if a federal minister admits that «We in Germany have never been completely sovereign since May 8, 1945» (8). Apparently, Germany's «incomplete sovereignty» affects its relations with Russia. An article by American experts from the Stratfor center (9) which characterizes Germany's policy in Ukraine as cynical and excessively assertive stands out... The Americans are offended that Berlin supports «its» Klitschko too openly, rather than Yatsenyuk, whom Victoria Nuland favors. And maybe Stratfor wants to throw the blame on Berlin as the main instigator of the Ukrainian uproar «just in case», and pit the Germans and Russians against each other while they are at it. After all, in the discourse of Stratfor head George Friedman one can hear a warning to the German upstarts: if you don't listen to us, you might end up all alone. Southern Europe hates you for your harsh demands for austerity measures, while the French are looking hopefully in the direction of Great Britain, dreaming of a new Entente Cordiale to counterbalance the hegemony of the Germans in Europe. And the Russians are angry at the attempt to snatch Ukraine away. By all appearances, Berlin took heed of the signal from the U.S., and now Yatsenyuk enjoys equal status there with Berlin's former favorite Klitschko. In any case, Merkel has invited both Klitschko and Yatsenyuk to Berlin.  But still, in spite of the wave of anti-Russian propaganda in the media, there exists a demand for normal neighborly relations with Russia in German society. It is no coincidence that for the first time in the past two years (!) Steinmeier has turned out to be a more popular politician in Germany than Merkel (10). Despite anti-Russian propaganda, independently thinking Germans condemn Western pressure on Ukraine. Signatures are being collected on a petition to that effect on the Internet. «This intervention is one more step toward starting World War III...we need peace and friendship with all countries, especially with Russia, against which this intervention is directed!» say those who have signed the petition (11).  Steinmeier's comparison of Ukraine to a powder keg evokes disturbing historical parallels with the Balkans. Germany understands the dangers of a powder keg in the center of Europe much better than the U.S., and such an assessment in and of itself could serve as a starting point for renewing German-Russian relations. (1) heute.de (2) Cited from: «Vorher Herr Bundeskanzler, nachher Herr Schröder». Handelsblatt, 14.02.2014. (3) «Deutschland kann keine grosse Schweiz sein»/Berner Zeitung, 07.02.2014. (4) See: zeitschrift-ip.dgap.org. This interview was published in the journal Internationale Politik before Erler was appointed to his post in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and thus it cannot be considered the coordinator's official position. Accordingly, there is no link to the publication on the Ministry's site. (5) „Ohne Russland geht es nicht“/ Handelsblatt, 12.02.2014. (6) Ohne Russland geht es nicht/Focus, 27.01.2014. (7) Donald Rumsfeld in a speech to foreign journalists at the State Department, January 2003. (8) Minister of Finance W. Schaeuble, 2011. theintelligence.de (9) George Friedman and Marc Lanthemann. A More Assertive German Foreign Policy. Geopolitical Weekly, February 4, 2014.  (10) According to an ARD-Deutschlandtrend survey, 70% of Germans are satisfied with Steinmeier's performance in office. Apparently he has exceeded the expectations of his countrymen, because in December 2013 only 53% of those surveyed approved of his appointment.  (11) openpetition.de

http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2014/02/19/a-few-words-on-the-incomplete-sovereignty-of-germany.html

Western Imperialism’s Creative Destruction in Syria

Western Imperialism’s Creative Destruction in Syria 18.02.2014 Finian Cunningham* US-led Western regime change in Syria might be described as a process of creative destruction. Like Schumpeter’s economic concept of cyclical creative destruction, so too Washington’s political machinations in Syria seem to be playing out likewise. We begin with the premise that the humanitarian crisis in Syria over the past nearly three years is largely as a result of a Western covert proxy war inflicted on that country. The objective is to destabilize, terrorize and eventuate regime change in the Arab country…  The crisis afflicting Syria with over 130,000 dead and nearly nine million people displaced from their homes – nearly 40 per cent of the total population – would not be occurring if it were not for the infiltration of that country with massive flows of weapons, fighting funds and foreign mercenary brigades. US and NATO Special Forces, along with Western military intelligence, have worked with Saudi, Qatari, Jordanian, Israeli and Turk allies to foment this externally driven insurgency. All under the cover of an Arab Spring revolt. The highly criminal process has attempted to destroy a sovereign country in order to create a new political order, one that is bereft of the existing political establishment under President Bashar Al Assad. This new order brought about by regime change would be amenable to Western interests in terms of Middle East politics and oil economics. In particular, the desired pro-Western regime would deny Russia, China and Iran of an important ally in the Mediterranean.  Western desire for regime change in Syria is well documented, according to American journalist Seymour Hersh, going back to at least 2007 when the George W Bush Presidency conceived of a plan to undermine the Syrian-Iranian resistance against Washington’s regional hegemony. Other historical studies argue that Western plans for regime change in Syria hark even further back to the 1950s when Dwight Eisenhower was US president.  Last year, former French Foreign Minister Roland Dumas revealed that he was approached two years before the outbreak of latest conflict in Syria in March 2011 by British political figures, who told him of a plot to unseat the Syrian government.  So, our premise of Western regime change being the driver of conflict and humanitarian crisis in Syria is on solid ground.  By contrast, the alternative premise of the events in Syria being the result of a «popular pro-democracy uprising against Assad» is a nebulous narrative emanating from Western governments and the Western mainstream media. That narrative does not stand up to scrutiny. A modified version to accommodate the contradiction that the «uprising» has become driven largely by Al Qaeda-linked brigades goes along the lines that the initial pro-democracy movement has somehow been «hijacked by extremists». But an objective study of the conflict shows that the extremists were always dominant, and that these extremists have been bankrolled, directed and armed by the US-led axis of NATO and regional allies from the outset.  The divergence of these narratives – one based on reality, the other based on propaganda to serve political interests – is reaching a watershed over the humanitarian issue of besieged Syrian cities. The main location currently in focus is the city of Homs, Syria’s third urban centre after the capital, Damascus, and the second city of Aleppo.  In total across Syria, there is reckoned to be some 250,000 civilians trapped in siege situations, according to the United Nations. The conditions for these civilians have deteriorated alarmingly with reports of starvation and privation from lack of basic utilities and medicines.  But which party is responsible for the sieges and the humanitarian suffering? Typically, the Western governments and the Western news media are blaming the Syrian authorities and army for imposing blockades. As with much of their narrative, there is scant factual evidence to support and it seems to rely on assertion and innuendo.  «Syria evacuated 83 civilians on Friday who had lived under government siege in the devastated city of Homs for a year and a half», read a report in the New York Times on February 8.  The general inference in the Western media is that the Assad government is guilty of a crime against humanity by using starvation as a weapon.  A draft resolution tabled this week at the UN Security Council by Western and Arab states also heavily attributed responsibility for the siege in Homs and other cities to the Syrian government. Russia and China rejected the draft resolution as «one-sided» and «divorced from reality» – as Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov put it. As it turns out in fact, Russia and China are correct in their assessment of the civilian sieges in Syria. Both tend to substantially agree with the Syrian government’s account that the humanitarian suffering of civilians trapped within Homs Old City, as well as in parts of Damascus and Aleppo, are the result of the Western-backed mercenaries. These groups are in effect holding on to urban territory by holding civilians hostage and as human shields. This was obliquely admitted in the New York Times report cited above. Near the end of that article, the paper noted that why the siege in Homs has endured for nearly 18 months until this week’s arrival of aid convoys and partial evacuation of citizens was because the anti-government militants have previously prevented any deal being done. «Rebels have rejected similar offers to evacuate women and children in the past because of concerns about what might happen to any men, including fighters, who are left behind», reported NYT. Or in other words, the so-called rebels were using women and children as human shields.  In another tacit admission of the real situation, as opposed to the propagandized version which blames the Syrian government for the siege, the British Guardian reported that most the civilians evacuated from Homs this week were being accommodated in other parts of the city, that is, in those parts controlled by government forces.  The Guardian reports on February 12: «The vast majority of those leaving the Old City [of Homs] were heading for the homes of relatives in other parts of Homs, according to the UN.» Now think about that. If the Syrian government forces were really imposing a barbaric siege on citizens in the Old City district, as the Western media maintain, would those emerging starving citizens then voluntarily go to government-held areas for refuge and respite?  Testimony from some of the Homs’ evacuees bears that view out too. One mother told how life within the trapped city was like «living in a jungle of monsters». She added that the militants would habitually steal whatever meager food rations the civilians had in their possession.  Several other sources, such as the Governor of Homs, Talal al-Bazzari, confirm that the Syrian government has worked along with the UN and Syrian Arab Red Crescent to break the siege. Aid convoys and evacuation vehicles have been fired on with gunfire and mortars. Reliable sources indicate that it was the militants within the Old City district who opened fire. This is consistent with previous warnings from these same groups that they would attack any UN aid convoys trying to enter the area. The same hostage-taking, human-shield scenario prevails in the militant-held Yarmouk district of Damascus and in Aleppo. It is clear therefore that the humanitarian crisis within besieged Syrian cities is the pernicious creation of Western-backed mercenaries – the same mercenaries who have been infiltrated into Syria to destroy that country in order to bring about Western regime change.  The humanitarian plight within the besieged city of Homs and other urban areas could serve as a microcosm of the entire conflict that Syria has been subjected to for the past three years. An entire nation has been held to ransom by external forces, comprising Al Qaeda foreign jihadists on the ground, all the way up to Western politicians sitting in high office.  What is disturbing about this criminal process of Western creative destruction is that the cycle does not stop once unleashed. The Western-backed mercenaries create the appalling humanitarian suffering within besieged cities, but instead of that narrative and its authors being rigorously held to account, as it should owing to the emerging facts and testimonies, the Western propagandists move on to another creative-destructive cycle. Both the Financial Times and the New York Times have this week carried op-ed pieces, which stridently argue that the humanitarian crisis in Syria’s cities now merits a full-on Western military intervention.  Max Boot, a senior fellow at the US-based Council on Foreign Relations, writes in the Financial Times comparing Syria with Rwanda and Srebrenica, and he blames all the horror on the «Assad regime» with a litany of outright falsehoods. Boot says: «No one is suggesting sending ground troops. But options range from doing more to arm the moderate opposition [sic], to declaring a no-fly zone. Drones could strike al-Qaeda operatives in Syria; air power could create humanitarian zones near the Turkish and Jordanian borders. The US could also take the lead in referring Mr Assad and his aides for war crimes prosecution.» He adds: «The UN Security Council is unlikely to support such steps, but the US would not have to act alone. Allies from France to Saudi Arabia have been urging action and would be eager to co-operate. But they will do little as long as Mr Obama refuses to act.» This hoary «Responsibility to Protect» appeal, which the US and its allies played as a pretext for imperialist regime change in Libya in 2011, is also reiterated by Danny Postel and Nader Hashemi in the New York Times, referring to the sieges in Syria as «moral obscenities» and blaming Russia as «a major obstacle» for its support of the Syrian government. Postel and Hashemi contend: «We should invoke the Responsibility to Protect, the principle that if a state fails to protect its populations from mass atrocities — or is in fact the perpetrator of such crimes — the international community must step in to protect the victims… And if a multinational force cannot be assembled, then at least some countries should step up… to provide the necessary force on the ground, with air cover from participating nations.»  In case this hackneyed R2P appeal does not work, Western opinion formers are also lately lining up other «justifications» for military intervention in Syria, including the «threat from Al Qaeda to Western countries» and the destabilization of the region’s security from refugees fleeing the violence in Syria. All problems, it should be noted, which are created by previous cycles of destructive Western covert intervention in Syria.  How depraved can such thinking get? Creative solutions for Western imperialism flow from its very own destructive predations. Lost in the destruction, it seems, is any ability for intelligent reasoning and cognition among Western thinkers and planners to face up to the real nature of the problem in Syria – Western imperialism. 18.02.2014 * Finian Cunningham has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published in several languages. Many of his recent articles appear on the renowned Canadian-based news websiteGlobalresearch.  He is a Master’s graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a scientific editor for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a career in journalism. He specializes in Middle East and East Africa issues and has also given several American radio interviews as well as TV interviews on Press TV and Russia Today.  His interests include capitalism, imperialism and war, socialism, justice and peace, agriculture and trade policy, ecological impact, science and technology, and human rights. He is also a musician and songwriter. Previously, he was based in Bahrain and witnessed the political upheavals in the Persian Gulf kingdom during 2011 as well as the subsequent Saudi-led brutal crackdown against pro-democracy protests.  The author and media commentator was expelled from Bahrain in June 2011 for his critical journalism in which he highlighted many human rights violations by the Western-backed regime.  For many years, he worked as an editor and writer in the mainstream media, including ,The Mirror, Irish Times and Independent. Originally from Belfast, Ireland, he is now based in East Africa where he is writing a book on Bahrain and the Arab Spring.