Can „Women lead to Peace“? A Critical View On The Geneva II Talks on Syria and Beyond

Report from the sideshow in Montreux and Geneva January 20-24th 2014 from Irene Eckert

Nobel prize winners and peace activists from Syria and around the world.  Oxfam activity Photo: Maria Christina Travaglio/Les Studios Casagrande

It goes without saying: Women are good mediators, women have played major roles in peacemaking. Since the Austrian Baroness Bertha von Suttner had demanded „ Lay Down your Arms “ and since she had won the first Nobel Price for Peace, a considerable number of women have followed her on that road.

After three years of barbaric bloodshed in Syria the possibility for stopping this inhuman madness is on the horizon. Under UN auspices 40 countries were called to assist the peace process in the proxy war fuelled in the aftermath of the 'Arab Spring'. 10 were called to come on a last minute notice.  Civil society has been confused about what was going in the Levante due to a massive propagandafire that accompanied the fighting on the ground. In consequence solidarity with the Syrian people has been unfortunatelly restrained.

The date for Geneva II peace talks was postponed many times and when mentioned at all in world media it was about inviting or disinviting Iran or about the alleged condition layed down in the Geneva I protocol, demanding that President Assad had to step down first if peace was to be and the country saved from disintegration.

Apart from some governments, 'UN WOMEN'* seemed to be the only prominent voice encouraging the Geneva II conference by saying „We share the hopes of the Syrian people that Geneva II will be a serious step towards ending the violence and bloodshed.“ In their statement from January 13^th 'UN WOMEN' called for a ceasefire, the participation of neighboring states and the lifting of economic sanctions on Syria.

For a pre-conference gathering 60 women from all corners of the world had come to Switzerland. Among them two Nobel Peace Price laureates, Mairead Maguire (Northern Ireland 1976) and Shirin Ebadi (Iran 2003). Together with other prominent and less prominent women, they have been invited by „Codepink“(USA), „Madre“(USA) and „WILPF“ (international). These women's associations want to make a contribution to promoting peace in Syria by calling for a ceasefire and for a stronger representation of women at the conference table.

What might have been underestimated during an intense week of seminars, discussions and spectacular outdoor activities to catch media attention was the fact that women are participating in the diplomatic procedures and some even play a very prominent role in it, but in conflicting parties.

On the side of the Syrian government there is  Dr. Bouthaina Shabaan, senior political and  media adviser of Dr. Assad. Shabaan gave CNN News a remarkable interview on Saturday night, January 25^th. ** On the opposite side the „Syrian National Council“ just appointed 26 year old Noura Al Amir as vicepresident, whose mandate is,  to force the Syrian government to step down. She attracted media attention by vociferously calling Bashar Al Assad „a criminal of war“ while  protesting against the talks on UN Plaza on Friday, January 24^th.

This is to show how antagonistic women's positionings can be. And this fact was reflected in the non-governmental meetings, too.

Law professor Shirin Ebadi, a strong advocate of human rights in Iran, argues on the same line with her Syrian „sister“ Al Amir, when accusing the present head of the Syrian goverment as „main obstacle to peace“. While living in the US she accuses the Iranians as „the only foreign government that militarily interferes in Syria.“ Her poem, dedicated to the soldier, fallen on Syrian ground, was unanimously applauded. As Women we react spontaneously and emotionally when it comes to human rights violations and when we commemorate sons and partners who  are losing  their lives as soldiers on the battleground.

So while insisting that „Women lead to Peace“,   we tend to forget that emotions can be misled if not adequately accompagnied by a sound analyes of the root causes of a given conflict. As women alone, even if representing more than half of the world's population, we can not overcome the antagonisms expressed above. These  antagonisms that  lie at the bottom of  conflict must be addressed, must be dealt with.

The women's assembly in Geneva and their spectacular presentations in the streets of Montreux, designed by 'Codepink' had brought together women from various conflict zones in the world, such as Bosnia-Herzegowina, Sri Lanka, Sahara, Columbia, Northern Ireland and more. They all wanted to set an example for the Syrian women, to offer their experience in conflict solving.

Mairead Maguire and her collegue insisted that women had played an important role in the peace process in Northern Ireland, putting aside their more specific needs. „Peace is a human right“ said Maguire and „the Syrian people must decide for themselves who should govern them“ and she added, „without foreign interference“.

Syrian women were present, too. They had come from inside Syria and from abroad, voicing oppositional views on the deplorable situation on the ground. Among them  were those, who had come to attack the Assad government for the present situation, entertaining even a propaganda radio program abroad to that purpose.

There were other oppositional representatives who were supporting  Mouna Ghanem, an ex-Syrian UN-worker. Her group  presented a „Syrian Women's Charter for Peace“ emphasising the unity of the country, rejecting foreign intervention, calling for an end to the economic strangeling of their country and insisting that women from inside Syria should play a more important role. Their proposals for rebuilding the country are concrete and constructive.

There were other Syrian women,  among them Swiss residents, professionals, insisting on the great role Syrian women used to play throughout history up to the breakout of the violence in 2011. They demanded "Foreigners out - Syrians in". Iman Lauraux from Geneva  said „Syrian women were queens and goddesses“ before the conflict was instigated from abroad three years ago. Proud women like herself do not want to be suppressed in Saudi Arabian style. It was also pointed out that foreign funding of hundreds of extremist islamist groups was a fact well documented,  and that it must be denounced.„Food of Peace“ was one of the ideas they foster in order to contribute to establish a dialogue among opponents.

Their were prominent women like Ex-EU-Parliament President Luisa Morgantini, also engaged in the Palestinan Cause, Heike Haensel, a peace activist and a Parliamentarian from Germany who had worked hard with her government to try and get women like Mouna Ghanem inlcuded in the oppositional Syrian delegation. There was Marie Dennis from Pax Christi headquarters in Belgium or US-veteran and ex-diplomat Ann Wright, who all voiced their strong sentiments to see the conflict in Syria ended on peaceful terms. There were Wilpfers young and old. The youngers more into Gender-Equality and problemsolving through UNSCR 1325 and the older pointing out to the need of awareness raising through studying the root causes of war and conflict as their ancestors had proposed when they founded the organisation almost one hundred years ago in the midst of World War I.

Most of us agreed that a deep breath and a lot of patience is needed if peace is to be established in Syria and in the Middle East, as all these countries and conflict zones are interrelated. And now with media attention gone,  real negotiations seem to be under way and they  seem to include Iran in one way or the other.

As peaceworkers we must carry Geneva back home and continue our support for a diplomatic solution.

______

* UN-WOMEN is a newly created UN agency for the advancement of women. It brings together the earlier existing programms and wants to further capacity building among women

**See http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article37471.htm#.UuVfu4EV2ls.email

Ms Bouthaina Shaaban, Senior Syrian Government Adviser, Speaks Out and Asks if the US is a Democracy

for video click here: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article37471.htm#.UuVfu4EV2ls.email President Assad's media advisor appeared on CNN and asked where John Kerry gets the right to tell the Syrian people who can and cannot be their leader. She encouraged the media to come to Syria so "you will find out for yourself who is the criminal; who is kidnapping people, who is raping people." She said that "most of what's circulated in the media has nothing to do with what's in Syria." Posted January 25, 2014

Celebrating a Century of Peacework (WILPF - Women's International League For Peace and Freedom)

Women's International League for Peace and Freedom's US-president Laura Roskos was invited by another old peace organization in Boston to reflect upon how to make best use of a century of history. Ms. Roskos recommended that in order to get strength out of that history to use it as „a touchstone“ and while touching it „simulataneously make changes in structure that will keep us relevant“.

The structural aproach seems tuned in. And yet, talking about structure does not really make sense and can be seriously misunderstood, if you do not right away say, what exactly the structural changes should be good for. As „Women for Peace“ we must always ask to whom do we want to be relevant and for what purpose. Even the very precious term 'Peace' has been misused. When we say peace, we do not want a piecemeal, we want peace with justice and we want it for every human being.

We definitely do no want to serve the 1%. We do not want do assist those who are responsible for warfare and who make a good profit out of it. On the contrary – as our foremothers - we do want to path ways that can help to overcome the war profit machinery.

Therefore if our anti-war stance is to be sound and serious we must dig into our rich historical archives and we must draw good advice from our sister's expierence. We must do more than use it „as a touchstone“, we must go and to study one hundred years of struggle seriously. In doing so, we can learn from its errors and from the positive impulses, too

Our foremothers came out with serious proposals to end the butchering on the battlefields and with a vision how to prevent future wars. They wanted to eliminate war as an instrument to settling conflicts and to work for conditions under which a permanent peace could be constructed. The first WILPF women encouraged us to study the root causes of conflict and eliminating them.

They went out from Congress and visited those politicians who shared the responsibility for keeping the war going and they talked to the representatives of neutral countries, too. They made a joint effort as „sisters“ although their were citizens from countries at war with each other. As women they asserted their equality with men to have the same say in dealing with issues of war and peace and made concrete proposals. They went with a strong political will to end all wars and to create conditions for a more just society for all.

If they were not successful in their endeavour this does no mean that they had the wrong approach, not at all. Unfortunatelly their voices were too weak as the women's movement was split over the question of war and peace and it still is! The professional women started globally united in the call for universal sufferage. But as women are not equal among themselves, they pursue different interests. Quite a few women have the same vested interests in the war machine as men do.

After the war the suffrage came. Women's proposals had had influence and they have helped to lay the ground work for the League of Nations and later the United Nations. WILPFERS have been very successfully active within that framework of nations on the basis of the UN-Charter.

But since 1945 the Charter itself has been seriously underminded and even violated with the introduction of concepts like the „Responsibility to Protect“ serving to promote "Regime Change" under  the pretext of helping out were "governments failed".

As caring women we  do feel strongly about Human Rights in its entity as laid down in the Human Rights Charter. But we cannot allow ourselves to be elusive, fluid, unconcrete. We must do much more than „allow space for imagination“. We must comprehend the process that during the last two decades lead to the weakening of international organisms. Not only WILPF has suffered from being influenced and from having their financial grounds shattered.

Let us been always clear. Never has it been WILPFs identity to remain marginal and to keep up the image of rebels. Our members did not define themselves as outsiders, on the contrary, they were marginalized under the conditions of war and cold war. Many WILPFERs have indeed taken responsible positions in their respective societies. They did prove that women can take on jobs on all levels of society and still work for peace and help transform the patterns of society. Ms Roskos should have pointed out to these fact, too.

When the US-president finalizes „our leaders do not live for ever“ , in my view this shows some disrespect of the elderly WILPFERs and their ongoing contribution to the struggle.

I can hear from such language serious disaproval of the achievements of those women who chose to organize for peace and freedom and not for gender equality one.

As women peacemakers we  have always considered ourselves as equal and as competent to help promote progress in our respective societies in order to garantuee human survival which can only be, if war is buried forever.

The above Comments on WILPF's US-President Laura Roskos Speech at Edwin Ginn Library at Tufts University's Fletcher School“ at the World Peace Foundation,  Massachusetts, January 13^th 2014 were presented byIrene Eckert, Berlin, Germany

"A Genève 2, la promesse d'un dialogue entre Syriens" le MONDE bien dans le camps des Etas Unis

Proche-Orient

A Genève 2, la promesse d'un dialogue entre Syriens

Le Monde.fr | 22.01.2014 à 14h44 • Mis à jour le 23.01.2014 à 08h59 |Par Benjamin Barthe et Yves-Michel Riols (Montreux, envoyés spéciaux)

La première journée de la conférence de paix sur la Syrie s'est achevée, mercredi 22 janvier à Montreux, sur une promesse des délégations du gouvernement syrien et de l'opposition de s'asseoir à la même table des négociations à partir du 24 janvier. Les discussions directes devraient s'étendresur une semaine environ puis reprendre, après une pause, pour une deuxième session de pourparlers, a déclaré le chef de la diplomatie russe, Sergueï Lavrov.

« L'essentiel est d'entamer le processus », a affirmé le ministre russe, qui a également dit que les Nations unies, les Etats-Unis et la Russie cherchaient à obtenir un accord entre les deux camps sur un échange de prisonniers.

« IL NE FAUT PAS REGARDER TRÈS LOIN »

Dès son ouverture, dans la matinée, la conférence de paix a baigné dans un climat de grande tension, tranchant avec l'allure paisible de cette station balnéaire de la rive suisse du lac Léman. Bien que Ban Ki-moon, le secrétaire général de l'ONU, ait exhorté les participants et notamment les deux délégations syriennes à modérer leur langage et à se comporter en hommes d'Etat, les premières interventions de la journée ont été marquées par des propos pleins d'acrimonie.

D'entrée de jeu, Sergueï Lavrov, le premier à 

prendre la parole, a planté le décor de cette rencontre. D'un ton sec et tranchant, il s'est livré à un réquisitoire contre l'opposition syrienne et ses parrains occidentaux. Il n'a pas eu un mot pour condamner les exactions du régime de Bachar Al-Assad, soutenu à bout de bras militairement par Moscou. Dans une allusion claire aux pays du Golfe, principaux bailleurs de fonds de la rébellion, et aux Etats-Unis, le chef de la diplomatie russe a vilipendé ceux qui « tentent de l'extérieur d'imposer leur modèle » à la Syrie.

Lire notre décryptage : A la conférence de Genève 2 sur la Syrie, des participants aux objectifs très différents

« Il ne faut pas regarder très loin », a-t-il poursuivi en faisant référence à la situation en Irak, pour comprendre que ces « tentatives ne peuvent que nuire »aux négociations engagées à Montreux.

Sergueï Lavrov a ensuite ouvertement remis en question la légitimité de la délégation de la Coalition nationale syrienne (CNS), colonne vertébrale de la résistance au régime de Bachar Al-Assad. « Certains groupes de l'opposition ne sont pas représentés ici, j'espère qu'ils le seront », a-t-il affirmé, en pointant à dessein les divisions au sein de l'opposition sur l'opportunité de participer à la réunion de Montreux.

LE DÉPART DE BACHAR AL-ASSAD, ENJEU DE LA RENCONTRE

Le chef de la diplomatie russe est rapidement passé sur l'ordre du jour officiel de la rencontre, à savoir la mise en place d'une transition politique, pour souligner que l'urgence du moment est d'éviter que la Syrie devienne une « base arrière du terrorisme international », reprenant ainsi l'argumentaire du régime. De surcroît, M. Lavrov a balayé d'un revers de la main les demandes d'ordre humanitaire réclamées par l'opposition, les qualifiant « d'artificielles ».

John Kerry a ensuite répondu au discours combatif de Sergueï Lavrov, dans une intervention aux antipodes de celle de son homologue russe. Il a salué la décision« courageuse » de la CNS de se rendre à Montreux et a clairement recadré l'enjeu de la rencontre : le départ de Bachar Al-Assad. « Il n'est pas envisageable qu'un homme qui a conduit la répression brutale de son propre peuple puisse retrouverla légitimité de gouverner. Le droit de conduire un pays, a-t-il insisté, ne peut pasvenir de la torture, des barils d'explosifs et des missiles Scud. Il provient du consentement du peuple. »

Lire aussi la note de blog : Syrie : ce que l'opposition peut espérer de Genève 2

A l'instar des autres intervenants, M. Kerry a souligné qu'il était illusoire d'attendredes résultats rapides de ce rendez-vous alors que le conflit syrien ne cesse de s'aggraver depuis trois ans : cette réunion n'est que le début d'un processus qui sera « long et difficile ».

Aussitôt après, dans un discours fleuve, plein de formules de rhétorique, parfois boursouflé, Walid Mouallem, le ministre des affaires étrangères de la Syrie, a tiré à boulets rouges sur les sponsors occidentaux et arabes de l'insurrection. Il les a accusés d'avoir « exporté le terrorisme » dans son pays et d'avoir « le sang des Syriens sur leurs mains ».

« PRATIQUES MOYENÂGEUSES »

Sans désigner d'Etat en particulier, mais dans une allusion transparente à l'Arabie saoudite et au Qatar, qui arment et financent les brigades rebelles, M. Mouallem a dénoncé « les pétrodollars qui servent à inonder les médias internationaux de mensonges et à envoyer des mercenaires » sur le champ de bataille syrien. Le chef de la diplomatie syrienne a raillé les prétentions des monarchies du golfe Arabo-Persique à donner à son pays « des leçons de démocratie et de développement alors qu'elles s'enfoncent dans leur propre ignorance et leurs pratiques moyenâgeuses ».

Regarder la vidéo : Syrie : la conférence de Genève 2 peut-elle aboutir ?

Homme lige de Bachar Al-Assad, Walid Mouallem a accusé nommément le premier ministre de la Turquie, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, la bête noire des autorités damascènes, de laisser rentrer « les terroristes » sur son territoire. Une allusion aux djihadistes de l'Etat islamique en Irak et au Levant (EIIL), qui ont longtemps circulé librement des deux côtés de la frontière syro-turque, avant qu'Ankara ne s'efforce de limiter leur mouvement. « Mais, attention, la magie va se retournercontre le magicien », a mis en garde M. Mouallem, en référence à l'emprise croissante des djihadistes sur le mouvement révolutionnaire et au débordement du conflit syrien au Liban et en Irak. « Ceux qui ne comprennent pas l'histoire se condamnent à perdre le présent, a-t-il souligné. Ça ne s'arrêtera pas ici. L'Afghanistan est un bon exemple pour ceux qui veulent comprendre. »

Après vingt minutes de discours enflammé, consacré quasi exclusivement à la question du « terrorisme », Ban Ki-moon, le maître de cérémonie, a poliment interrompu Walid Mouallem pour le presser d'achever son intervention, « en cinq minutes ». Une demande ignorée avec superbe par ce vétéran de la diplomatie.« Vous habitez à New York, j'habite en Syrie, j'ai le droit de m'exprimer comme je l'entends », a-t-il tranché, ajoutant qu'il prendrait « encore vingt minutes ».

Tout en stigmatisant les exactions perpétrées par le courant radical de la rébellion, M. Mouallem a entonné l'une des rengaines habituelles du régime syrien, en le présentant comme « le protecteur d'un islam tolérant et des chrétiens du Levant ». Il a achevé son intervention en proposant aux Occidentaux l'aide de son pays pour lutter contre le « terrorisme ». « Travaillons main dans la main pour arrêtercette idéologie obscurantiste », a-t-il insisté.

URGENCE D'« UN OU DES CESSEZ-LE-FEU »

Ahmed Jarba, le patron de la Coalition nationale syrienne, a ensuite pris la parole. Beaucoup plus concis que M. Mouallem, il a ouvert ses propos en rappelant que la crise actuelle a commencé par des « manifestations pacifiques, vendredi après vendredi ». Il a rendu hommage au jeune Hamza Al-Khatib, l'un des martyrs emblématiques de la révolution, torturé à mort par les services de sécurité syriens, et a fait allusion à un récent rapport, dévoilé par CNN et The Guardian, qui révèle, photographies des cadavres à l'appui, que 11 000 détenus ont été exécutés dans les geôles syriennes. Des pratiques qui rappellent selon M. Jarba« les camps de concentration nazis ».

Après avoir accusé le pouvoir syrien de « faciliter le travail de Da'ech », l'acronyme arabe de l'Etat islamique en Irak et au Levant, M. Jarba en est revenu à l'ordre du jour de la conférence : la création par « consentement mutuel » d'une instance de gouvernement transitoire, « dotée des pleins pouvoirs exécutifs », ce qui suppose que M. Al-Assad n'y joue aucun rôle : « Avons-nous un partenaire syrien dans cette salle ? », a demandé M. Jarba.

Dans l'immédiat, Laurent Fabius a appelé à des mesures concrètes pour que la conférence de Montreux ait un impact sur la population syrienne. Il faut de « toute urgence », a plaidé le chef de la diplomatie française, « un ou des cessez-le-feu », l'ouverture de « couloirs humanitaires » et l'acheminement de « vivres et médicaments ». Mais il a aussi réitéré qu'il ne pouvait y avoir d'ambiguïté sur le but de cette rencontre : « Il ne s'agit pas de conduire une discussion générale sur la Syrie » mais « de rechercher un accord politique » conduisant à la création d'une autorité de transition. Au vu de la tonalité acerbe des premières interventions à Montreux, les empoignades à ce sujet ne font que commencer.

Lire aussi (édition abonnés) : Syrie : les attentes des différents protagonistes de Genève 2

• Benjamin Barthe 
  Journaliste au MondeSuivre Aller sur la page de ce journaliste

• Yves-Michel Riols (Montreux, envoyés spéciaux) 
  Journaliste au Monde

Miko Peled, „The General’s Son“ ( israelischer Friedensaktivist) liest in Wien

Vortrag und Lesung

Miko PeledVortrag und Lesung

Donnerstag, 6.2.2014, 19.00 Uhr

Afro-Asiatisches Institut, 1090 Wien, Türkenstraße 3

Der israelische Friedensaktivist und Autor spricht über sein Buch „The General’s Son“ und die politische Sackgasse in Palästina/Israel. (Der Vortrag findet in Englisch statt.)

Gesellschaft für Österreichisch-Arabische Beziehungen

A-1100 Wien, Laaer-Berg-Str. 43

Tel.: +43 1 526 78 10, Fax: +43 1 526 77 95

E-Mail: office.vienna@saar.at

www.saar.at

Donnerstag, 6.2.2014, 19.00 Uhr

Afro-Asiatisches Institut, 1090 Wien, Türkenstraße 3

Top Three Media Lies About the Syrian Peace Talks

The Propaganda War Heats Up

by SHAMUS COOKE
The media spin machine is again kicking into high gear, perfectly timed to accompany the “Geneva II” Syria peace talks. The lies are necessary to give the Obama administration an upper hand in the peace negotiations, which are not being used to pursue peace, but instead, to accomplish the Obama administration’s longstanding goal of Syrian regime change. Here are the top three Western media lies about the Syrian peace talks.
1) The removal of Syrian presidentBashar al-Assad was an agreed upon “precondition” for the Geneva II peace talks.
This lie has been repeated over and over by government and media alike. It has zero basis. The Obama administration claims that this precondition was expressed in the “Geneva communiqué,” which was a road map agreement meant to guide the Geneva II peace talks, agreed upon by some of the major parties of the negotiations, including Russia.
The communiqué does indeed call for a negotiated political transition, but nowhere does it state that such a transition cannot include President Assad. Such a condition would have been outright rejected by Russia.
In fact, the Geneva communiqué includes this crucial statement:
“[a transition government] could include members of the present [Syrian] government and the opposition and other groups and shall be formed on the basis of mutual consent.”
Nowhere does it specifically mention or imply President Assad.
The Los Angeles Times recently stepped out of line and exposed this lie:
“[John] Kerry regularly cites the “Geneva communiqué,” a kind of peace road map hammered out in June 2012 during a United Nations-organized summit. But the document does not explicitly call for Assad’s ouster.”
The Obama administration’s constant repeating of this lie only causes divisions in the peace process, undermining the chances that the peace process will succeed.
The Obama administration is especially adamant about this “Assad must go” pre-condition because it knows that, if free and fair elections were held tomorrow in Syria — as part of a UN-backed “transitional process”— President Assad would likely win. This is the result of the ethnic and religious minorities in Syria that have rallied behind President Assad, since they’ve witnessed the consistent religious sectarian atrocities committed by the U.S.-backed rebels (which the U.S. media loves to ignore or minimize).
Assad would probably win an election since there is also simply no one else on the government side or the opposition side with his name recognition or popularity. The U.S.-backed rebel war in Syria has vastly strengthened Assad’s political hand, but you wouldn’t know it from the Western, anti-Syrian media.
Demanding Assad’s ouster also does not reflect the situation on the ground. The U.S.-backed rebels have never controlled more than one Syrian city, namely Raqaa, which is dominated by al-Qaeda and is governed under a Taliban- style interpretation of Islamic law, which includes a strict ban on music. Thus, the rebels don’t have the ground power that would even enable them to make the demand that “Assad must go”.
2) The U.S.-backed rebel militias are “moderate” Islamic groups.
The fact that this lie can even be uttered publicly without encountering ridicule is a major success of Western media propaganda. The media narrative paints the U.S.-backed “good” rebels fighting both the Syrian government and the “bad” al-Qaeda linked rebels.
But the “good” rebels in the U.S.-backed Islamic Front share the same vision for Syria’s future as the al-Qaeda rebels: a fundamentalist version of Sharia law, where women live in virtual house arrest and where religious minorities are second class citizens (non-Sunni Muslims would simply be butchered, as they are on a regular basis in Syria, which is again minimized or ignored in the Western media.)

The “moderate rebel” lie was further exposed recently when a top leader in the most powerful militia, Ahrar al Sham, within the Islamic Front declared Ahrar al Sham to be the “real” representative of al-Qaeda in Syria, as opposed to the rival al-Qaeda faction that the Islamic Front had recently begun fighting.
Ahrar al Sham has long been known to be an al-Qaeda type Islamist extremist group; the Western media simply chose to ignore it. But when it was recently made official, the U.S. media chose to continue its ignoring stance, since actually reporting on it would destroy their “moderate rebel” lie. The Western media also continues to ignore the fact that the “moderate” U.S.-backed Islamic Front issued a joint statement that aligned itself to the extremist views of Ahrar al Sham, the “real” al-Qaeda.
3) New Evidence of Syrian government “industrial scale” torture.
The Western media recently blasted the “breaking news” of brand new evidence showing massive “NAZI-like” torture and murder by the Syrian government, released at the beginning of the Syrian peace talks. This may or may not be true, but the lie here is that the Western media promoted the “evidence” as being unquestionably true, when the story doesn’t reach first base when it comes to evidence-based journalism.
All we really know is that there are hundreds of pictures of dead people that a “trusted source” says were killed by the Syrian government. The trusted source was designated as such by pro-Western intellectuals, who have earned professional “credibility” by helping convict war criminals in the International Criminal Court [ICC]. But as author Diane Johnstone pointed out in her excellent book “Fools Crusade,” about the war against Yugoslavia — as well as in other articles — the ICC has long been used by western powers as a tool to create a pretext for war, or a tool to justify a war after the fact.
The evidence of the “NAZI-like” atrocities was written in a study paid for by the government of Qatar, which has long funneled cash, guns, and Jihadis to Syria in aid of the anti-government rebels.
Again, we don’t know if the story is true or not. But such an important investigation should be conducted by the UN or another more objective institution. The same biased dynamic occurred in relation to the infamous chemical weapons attack, where no real evidence was provided, though an unending string of “experts” were quoted in the Western media, testifying to the guilt of the Syrian Government. But when Pulitzer prizewinning journalist Seymour Hirsch reported that the Obama administration lied about the rebels not having the capacity to perform such an attack, the Western media simply ignored the legend of journalism. The wrench in the propaganda machine was simply dislodged.
How do these lies become such permanent fixtures in the Western media? An excellent article in the Guardian newspaper recently discussed in depth the principal sources the Western media has used to understand the Syrian conflict.
The article exposed the incredible bias of some of the most important Western media sources on Syria, which is why they were handpicked in the first place to be “expert” sources: they had political agendas that were aligned with the U.S. government’s foreign policy decisions. The other side of the conflict was completely ignored, except when it was targeted for ridicule. Thus, Americans and Europeans have a completely one-sided, if not fantasy-based perspective of what is happening in Syria. This has been systematic since the beginning of the conflict, as happened with the Yugoslav, Afghan, Iraq, and Libya wars.
The result of this media-led ignorance could result in yet more unnecessary deaths in a country that now has millions of refugees and over a 100,000 dead. Obama seems like he intends to exploit these peace talks with the intention of blaming the Syrian government for their failure. Having failed to defeat Assad on the battlefield in a proxy war, the Obama administration is trying to win the propaganda war. And once peace talks have failed, talk of war will resume, since “all other options have failed.”
Shamus Cooke is a social service worker, trade unionist, and writer for Workers Action (www.workerscompass.org). He can be reached at shamuscooke@gmail.com 

Quelle:
Counterpunch Weekend Edition January 24-26, 2014 http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/01/24/top-three-media-lies-about-the-syrian-peace-talks

Forderungen von Frauen in Genf und Montreux unzurreichend bis irreführend!

"Führen Frauen uns zum Frieden in Syrien"? Ein kritischer Blick auf die Nebenschauplätze der Genfer Friedensverhandlungen vom 21.- 24. Januar 2014 

Ein Bericht aus der Schweiz von Irene Eckert am 25. Januar

Am 22. Januar endlich - nach viel Vorgeplänkel und zugespitzter Anti-Bashar Al-Assad Hetze - konnten Friedensverhandlungen im pittoresken Schweizer Urlaubsort Montreux eröffnet werden. Das milde mediterrane Mikroklima, der strahlende Sonnenschein und schneebehütete Berggipfel könnten die Vorboten einer endlich konstruktiven Entwicklung sein.

Es waren  am Ende 40 Nationen vertreten und 700 akkreditierte Journalisten, als der Präsident der Schweizer Konföderation, Didier Burkhalter, die Gäste um Punkt 9Uhr im „Palace Hotel“ am Genfer See begrüßte. Vergessen war die Uhrentagung, die als Vorwand für die Verlegung gedient hatte. Verziehen war die Wiederausladung des syrischen Nachbarn Iran, der in letzter Minute erst den Ruf nach Montreux erhalten hatte. Immerhin war Präsident Rohani bereits unterwegs zum Weltwirtschaftsgipfel in Davos, wo er als Ehrengast eine viel beachtete Rede hielt. Iran wird im weiteren Konferenzverlauf ganz bestimmt einen Beitrag leisten zur Lösung der „Syrienkrise“. Die große Kulturnation wird sich dafür kaum dem Westen unterordnen. Selbstbewusst wies das iranische Staatsoberhaupt im Schweizer Luftkurort darauf hin: „Der Iran habe das Potential zu den zehn größten Volkswirtschaften der Welt zu gehören“ (NZZ, 24. Januar 14) und weiter „sein Land werde keine Vorbedingung für eine Gesprächsbeteiligung akzeptieren“. Rohani nannte die „Rebellen“ konsequent Terroristen und beharrte darauf, dass kein Staat der Erde das Recht habe, über die Zukunft Syriens zu befinden.

Aus ganz Europa waren unterdessen zahlreiche syrische Unterstützer der Regierung Assad zu Konferenzbeginn nach Montreux gereist. Sie wurden konfrontiert von einigen wenigen „Oppositionellen“, die ihnen lauthals Paroli boten. Das Massenaufgebot an Polizeikräften im idyllischen Ferienort zeigte sich auf der Straße als ebenso parteiisch wie die gesamte Medienwelt.

Auch ein kleines rosarot betuchtes Frauenvölkchen war medienwirksam präsent in Genf und Montreux. Unter dem Codewort „Pink“ waren die Frauen darum bemüht, eine dritte Position zwischen den Fronten einzunehmen. Weiße Masken, schwarz drapiert, trugen Schilder mit der Aufschrift „Rettet Syrien!“ Andere pinke Banner forderten „Waffenstillstand jetzt“! „Schluß mit der Gewalt“! „Frauen an den Konferenztisch!“

Seit Montag, dem 21. Januar schon, hatten sich rund 60 Frauen aus allen Ecken der Welt im brandneuen Genfer Glaspalast „Maison de la Paix“ im Chemin Eugene Rigot 2, zusammengefunden, um ihr Anliegen zu erörtern und um ihr Vorgehen gegenüber den Unterhändlern zu besprechen. Eine Koalition von Codepink (USA), MADRE (USA) und WILPF (international) hatte es möglich gemacht, prominente Frauen wie die Nobelpreisträgerinnen Shirin Ebadi (Iran 2003) und Mairead Maguire (Nordirland 1976) einzuladen. Gekommen waren auch Luisa Morgantini aus Rom, Ex-Vizepräsidentin des EU Parlaments, Ann Wright aus Hawaii, Ex-US-Diplomatin und Mitstreiterin der „Veteranen für den Frieden“ und eine Parlamentarierin aus Deutschland, Heike Hänsel, sowie Frauen aus vielen Konfliktzonen der Welt. Sie alle einte das Bestreben, den syrischen Frauen beizustehen und ihre Kampferfahrungen mit ihnen zu teilen. Auch syrische Frauen, die im Ausland leben, brachten ihre Stimmen zu Gehör. Ihre Herangehensweisen an den Friedensprozess und die unbestreitbare Notwendigkeit der Gewalt Einhalt zu gebieten, waren wohl so unterschiedlich wie jene derer, die am Konferenztisch vertreten sind. Während die Frauendelegation von Dr. Mouna Ghanem, einer ehemaligen UN-Mitarbeiterin Syriens, immerhin den Schwerpunkt auf Beendigung des bewaffneten Konflikts legt, einer politischen Lösung das Wort redet, jegliche ausländische Intervention zurückweist, die Aufhebung der Wirtschaftssanktionen fordert, die Einschleusung von Militanten in das Terrritorium Syriens verhindert wissen will und die Einheit des Landes verteidigt, während syrische Schweizerinnen ein Versöhnungs-Programm „Nahrung für den Frieden“ vorstellten, gab es andere Syrerinnen, die etwa vom Ausland aus stolz einen Hetzsender gegen Assad betreiben. Während die Juristin Shirin Ebadi darauf beharrte, die Verantwortung für das Chaos und das Blutvergießen in Syrien heute trage Assad und insbesondere auch ihr Heimatland, das als einzige Nation bewaffnete Hilfstruppen nach Syrien entsende und vor allem Präsident Assad darin unterstütze, seine Bürger zu unterdrücken, vertrat Mairead Maguire eine ganz andere Haltung.

Maguire und ihre Kolleginnen haben Syrien unlängst besucht. Ihre Gruppe hat mit vielen syrischen Bürgern vor Ort gesprochen. Sie versucht beide Konfliktparteien zu verstehen, will konkret helfen, dem Terror Einhalt gebieten.

Ebadi fordert den Iran auf, Syrien zu verlassen und widmet einem auf syrischer Erde gefallenen iranischen Soldaten ein salbungsvolles Gedicht. Ebadi lebt in den Vereinigten Staaten und kämpft von dort aus für Menschenrechte im Iran.

Die Friedensvermittlerinnen aus Nordirland bemühen sich um Heilung der Wunden, die der endlos währende Konflikt in ihrem Lande in jeder Familie gerissen hat. Die langjährige Friedensarbeiterin Mairead Maguire beharrt auf dem „FRIEDEN als einem Menschenrecht“ und darauf, dass Verhandlungen ohne Vorbedingungen zu beginnen sind, während sie das Recht des syrischen Volkes auf Selbstbestimmung anmahnt und dessen Recht sein Führungspersonal selbst zu wählen, unterstreicht.

Frauen aus der Sahara, aus Sri Lanka, aus Bosnien Herzegowina und aus   anderen Konfliktzonen dieser Welt sind eher darauf bedacht, ihre jeweils spezifische Problematik ins Zentrum zu rücken.

Andere wiederum unterstreichen frauenspezifische Belange so sehr, dass dabei die Notwendigkeit, der Gewalt in Syrien erst einmal Einhalt zu gebieten, in den Hintergrund gerät. Die nordirischen Frauen betonen allerdings die wichtige Rolle, die Frauen im Friedensprozess der 70iger Jahre eingenommen haben. Sie sagen aber auch, dass sie ihre spezifischen Belange dafür zurückgestellt haben.

Vielen der hier vertretenen Frauen geht es in erster Linie um die Wahrung von Menschenrechten unter dem Schwerpunkt „Geschlechtergerechtigkeit“. Diese Frauen scheinen ganz erfüllt von der Überzeugung, dass das entscheidende Instrument für ein Vorankommen die Frauenquote ist.

Nur vereinzelte Stimmen, wie Iman Laraux aus Genf etwa, beharrten auf der großartigen Rolle, die die Frauen vor Ausbruch der Gewalttätigkeiten 2011 im säkular bestimmten, multiethnischen Lande Syrien innehatten. Nur wenige Anwesende wehren sich mit aller Entschiedenheit gegen die ausländische Einmischung, gegen die Finanzierung der Gewalttäter von außen und weisen auf Beweise hin, die es dafür gebe. Diese seien allgemein zugänglich.

Manche Frauen beklagen, dass Brahimi anders als sein Vorgänger Kofi Annan, kein „robustes Mandat“ habe und keine Blauhelme entsenden oder humanitäre Korridore eröffnen  könne.

Nach einem Tag der Reflektion und Auswertung begannen im Genfer Völkerbundpalast am 24. Januar endlich die eigentlichen Verhandlungen. Die syrische Delegation ist hochrangig besetzt. Ihr Leiter, Außenministers Walid Muallem hat - ungeachtet aller gegen ihn und seine Mannschaft gerichteten Attacken - seine Bereitschaft erklärt, bis zum Ende nächster Woche in Genf zu bleiben.

Die syrische „Opposition“ gibt ein schwaches, uneiniges Bild ab mit ihrer unrealistischen Forderung nach Rücktritt Assads als dürftigem Band. Nun aber verhandeln sie alle hinter geschlossenen Türen sogar das ganze Wochenende hindurch. Russland und die Vereinigten Staaten mischen mit .

Das große, aggressive Spektakel der Opposition gestern auf dem „Place des Nations“ vor dem festungsartig geschützten UN-Gebäude wird am hofffentlich konstruktiven Verlauf der Friedensgespräche nichts mehr ändern. Es bleibt Aufgabe der Friedenskräfte zu Hause und vor Ort in ihrer Aufmerksamkeit hinsichtlich der großen Bedeutung dieser Gespräche nicht nachzulassen und ihre „Basisgemeinden“ auf dem Laufenden zu halten. In Anbetracht des wohl lange andauernden diplomatischen Prozesses müssen wir uns alle einerseits in Geduld  üben, andererseits die politische Aufklärungsarbeit über das gesamte Problemfeld Nahost intensivieren.

Seien  wir uns als Frauen, die wir für den Frieden arbeiten, bewusst, dass die sogenannte „Nationale Koalition Syriens“, die Hauptkraft der Opposition jetzt mit Noura Al Amir, eine junge Frau zur Vizepräsidentin erkoren hat, die gestern vor dem UN-Palast in Mikrophon rief: „Die internationale Gemeinschaft muss das Schicksal von Assad verkürzen und darf es nicht zulassen, dass ein Kriegsverbrecher an der Spitze einer Nation verbleibt.“

Sollte das etwa der neue weibliche Code sein, der uns zum Frieden führt? Könnte eine stärkere Repräsentanz von „Frauen am Verhandlungstisch“, wenn sie sich einer solchen Sprache bedienen, wirklich den Weg zum Frieden eröffnen? Als jahrzehntelanges Mitglied der ältesten internationalen Frauen-Friedens-Organisation WILPF*, die nächstes Jahr ihren 100sten Geburtstag feiert und als Vertreterin des Arbeitskreises für Friedenspolitik - atomwaffenfreies Europa e.V. meine ich dazu entschieden NEIN!

*WILPF = Women's International League For Peace And Freedom