Friday, March 16, 2018

Novichok – toxic questions about chemical at center of Skripal saga

Published time: 13 Mar, 2018 19:02 Edited time: 14 Mar, 2018 08:43

The public has learnt a new Russian word: Novichok or novice, as the UK claims it is a nerve agent that poisoned former double agent Sergei Skripal. But, as with many elements of this saga, this chemical raises many questions.

British Prime Minister Theresa May said Skripal and his daughter were poisoned by a military-grade nerve agent “Novichok,” allegedly developed by Russia. She claimed this was either “a direct action” by Moscow or the result of a loss of control over “its potentially catastrophically damaging nerve agent.” Speaking to MPs, she even said the cabinet had given Moscow one day to provide a “credible response” to the allegations.

Britain's Prime Minister Theresa May © Simon Dawson

The use of a military-grade secret nerve agent may sound like a James Bond movie and, as with many action dramas, there are some notable inconsistences in the plot that raise questions.

The killer agent that is not on chemical watchdog list?

The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) carefully describes all known types of weapons-grade chemicals, including notorious sarin and VX, as well as their properties, mechanisms of action, and possible antidotes. But oddly enough, ‘Novichok’ – the substance supposedly deadlier than sarin or VX – is not on the OPSW nerve agents list.

Would you pay $30 for a secret chemical agent formula?

‘Novichok’ was first disclosed to the public by a Russian chemist named Vil Mirzayanov, who claimed in a 1992 article for Moskovsky Komsomolets daily that Moscow was developing extremely potent fourth-generation chemical weapons. The article was published prior to Russia's signing of the Chemical Weapons Convention, making the timing particularly interesting.

Mirzayanov, who defected to the US several years later, reacted to the British prime minister’s accusations in a notable post on Facebook. “[May] said that ‘Novichok’ has been used in the assassination attempt on Skripal,” Mirzayanov wrote. “Its chemical formula has been published only in my book,” he said.

His book, which allegedly contains the top-secret formula of the deadly nerve agent, is titled ‘State Secrets: An Insider's Chronicle of the Russian Chemical Weapons Program.’ Its paperback edition is available on Amazon and sells for just $30. If the formula is genuine, this is probably the first time a whistleblower has provided free access to a method of producing the highly poisonous weapon.

Is Russia the only place it could come from?

Mirzayanov also contributed to a 1995 report by the US-based Henry L. Stimson Center. The paper, which refers to the defector’s 1992 piece, noted multiple security flaws at Russia’s chemical weapons storage sites – a revelation unsurprising enough, given the poor state of Russian military at the time. While praising some basic security measures at the compounds, the report says: “By US standards, Russian chemical weapon storage facilities unquestionably appear vulnerable to attack from outside and theft from within.”

London Road Cemetery in Salisbury, Britain, March 10, 2018. © Peter Nicholls

Nikolai Kovalev, who led Russia’s security service, the FSB, from 1996 to 1998, told RIA Novosti that the likes of ‘Novichok’ were “stockpiled in former Soviet Union republics.” Russian Senator Franz Klintsevich told the Zvezda TV Channel that the Soviet military sent the so-called “frontline packages” containing the agent to various parts of the country. “It could have been stored in any [post-Soviet] country, including Georgia and Ukraine,” he noted.

Back in 1999, it emerged that the Pentagon might gain access to one of the chemical plants that reportedly produced ‘Novichok.’ The New York Times reported that the US military was going to spend up to $6 million “to demilitarize the so-called Chemical Research Institute”located in the Uzbek city of Nukus. “Soviet defectors and American officials say the Nukus plant was the major research and testing site for a new class of secret, highly lethal chemical weapons called ‘Novichok,’ which in Russian means '’new guy,’” the piece said.

How was it proven to have been Russia, if nerve agents can be produced anywhere?

‘Novichok’ is said to be a “binary agent,” meaning that it could be stored as two, less toxic chemicals. To produce the active toxic agent, the two must be mixed, and be allowed to react. This makes the ingredients easier to transport, as they only become fully toxic when mixed.

Anton Utkin, a Russian chemist who worked as a UN inspector in Iraq and developed technologies to destroy Russia’s chemical weapons, says it’s unclear “how they [Britain] could establish that it was produced in Russia.” He said that anyone familiar with the technology could have produced it. “You can’t find out who manufactured the chemical weapon – the content of the substance will be fully identical while using the same method,” he said. “There is no way to establish with full accuracy that a chemical comes from this or that country.”

What about the chemical watchdog confirming Russia destroyed its stockpiles?

In autumn last year, the OPCW confirmed that Moscow – a signatory to the Chemical Weapons Convention – had completely destroyed its stockpiles. The organization’s inspection teams verified the destruction at seven chemical weapons destruction facilities in Russia, and, on September 27, 2017, the last of these facilities officially ceased its operations. The six other facilities were closed between 2005 and 2015.

The Russian Foreign Ministry building. © Natalia Seliverstova

"The completion of the verified destruction of Russia's chemical weapons program is a major milestone in the achievement of the goals of the Chemical Weapons Convention,” the organization’s Head Ambassador Ahmet Uzumcu said at the time. He praised countries that assisted Russia with its destruction program, as well as OPCW staff who verified the destruction.

Timing is everything?

Russian officials say the timing of the allegations is particularly notable. “Presidential elections are looming in Russia, and the country is accused of committing every mortal sin,” Sergey Stepashin, former FSB director, told Interfax. “Tell me, which idiot in Russia could carry out such [an attack]? Where is the logic [in that]?”

He asserted that the story could have been “a primitive provocation by British intelligence services,” and noted that Moscow and London signed a 1998 agreement on mutual investigations in high-profile cases. “So, hand the files over to us and let us probe the crime together,” the former intelligence chief said. https://www.rt.com/news/421200-uk-novichok-agent-allegations/

Thursday, March 15, 2018

Britain’s presumption of guilt towards Russia invites conflict and chaos

Finian Cunningham (born 1963) has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published in several languages. Originally from Belfast, Northern Ireland, 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 newspaper journalism. For over 20 years he worked as an editor and writer in major news media organizations, including The Mirror, Irish Times and Independent. Now a freelance journalist based in East Africa, his columns appear on RT, Sputnik, Strategic Culture Foundation and Press TV.

Published time: 14 Mar, 2018 15:06 Edited time: 14 Mar, 2018 15:13

Get short URL

Britain’s presumption of guilt towards Russia invites conflict and chaos

Britain’s abandonment of due process has taken a dangerous and reckless leap, with Theresa May declaring economic sanctions and diplomatic expulsions for Russia’s “failure” to respond to allegations over the Skripal poisoning.

Provocatively, Moscow was given a 24-hour deadline to “answer” charges leveled by the British government that it was responsible for the attempted murder of a Russian double agent, Sergei Skripal, who had been living in England since 2010 after a spy-swap deal.

Skripal (66) and his 33-year-old daughter Yulia were apparently stricken with a deadly nerve agent in his adopted hometown of Salisbury on March 4 while strolling through a public park. The pair have been receiving treatment in intensive care ever since.

Earlier this week, the British prime minister asserted that the chemical weapon used was a Soviet-era nerve agent, Novichok, and – on that basis – the Russian state was implicated in the attempted murder of the former spy. Skripal had been exiled from Russia in 2010 after he was convicted of treason as a double agent for British intelligence MI6.

The new economic and diplomatic sanctions against Moscow, which were announced by May in the House of Commons on Wednesday, constitute a reckless escalation towards conflict between Britain, its NATO allies, and Russia.

Moscow has said it will not stand for British punitive measures and is vowing to take reciprocal actions.

Washington and European states have quickly followed Britain’s lead in ramping up hostile rhetoric towards Russia, and issuing statements of “solidarity.” Relations between Russia and NATO states had already plummeted to Cold War depths before the latest row.

The invitation for more chaos and conflict comes with the abandonment of any pretense at upholding legal principles and standards.

Britain and its allies are relying on the inverted principle of “presumption of guilt” as opposed to “innocence.” Within days of the apparent poison attack on the Sergei Skripal and his daughter, the British authorities and media had rushed to judgement that the alleged attack was the work of the Russian state in an act of revenge for past betrayal. That motive does not stand up to scrutiny, noted former British ambassador Craig Murray.

Furthermore, the hypothetical Soviet-era nerve agent identified by the British authorities has not been independently verified. We are relying on official British claims. The alleged chemical may or may not have been used in the attack.

READ MORE: Corbyn challenges May's 'evidence' of Russian ‘culpability’ in ex-spy poisoning

As Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov revealed, all requests from Moscow for access to the alleged poison as evidence have been refused by London. Such a refusal is a violation of the Convention on Chemical Weapons treaty, which mandates joint inspection of alleged incidents.

So, the British government imposed an ultimatum on Russia to provide “answers” to provocative charges without Moscow being given a fair chance to ascertain those charges. On the basis of that contemptible lack of due process, the British are calling on its NATO allies to escalate punitive measures against Russia.

There are even British media reports of Britain invoking NATO’s Article Five clause, which mandates the military pact to come to the defense of another member deemed to be under attack.

One senior British cabinet minister was quoted anonymously by The Independent as saying: “What happens will be an economic war, these will be economic measures. Russia’s economy is only half that of the UK… That doesn’t give us any pleasure at all, but we need the nations of Europe to behave within the rule of law and not like gangsters.”

The logic is unhinged. British authorities are claiming to be acting within the rule of law against Russian “gangsters,” when in fact it is the British who are bludgeoning any legal standard of due process.

Paramount to due process is the presumption of innocence, which is the bedrock of international law and the United Nations’ Charter of Human Rights.

Canadian-based war crimes defense attorney Christopher Black says: “The presumption of innocence is the foundation stone of modern criminal justice. It is the pre-eminent factor in every trial. The accused is deemed to be innocent unless and until evidence that cannot be doubted establishes that the crime took place as claimed, and the accused is the person who committed it and had the intent to commit it.”

Black says that this is the exact opposite of what is taking place with regard to British claims over the latest alleged poisoning incident in Britain. The lawyer adds that the erosion of standard legal principle has been underway for several years due to political expedience by Western states. He points to the various ad-hoc war-crimes trials pushed by the United States and its NATO allies to convict political enemies in former Yugoslavia and Africa.

With regard to Russia and, in particular, the demonization of the government under President Vladimir Putin, the Western states have used the principle of “presumption of guilt” on numerous occasions, including the downing of the Malaysian airliner over Ukraine in 2014; implicating Russia in Ukraine’s conflict; smearing Russia over sports doping and banning it from the Olympics; allegations of Russian “interference” in US and European elections; and blackening Moscow for “war crimes” in Syria.

In all cases, allegations are simply leveled and repeated ad nauseam without evidence ever being presented. Indeed, sometimes in spite of plausible counter-evidence.

Christopher Black continues: “The accusations against Russia from the MH-17 Malaysian airliner, Crimea, Ukraine, electoral interference, and so on, are all part of carefully orchestrated propaganda warfare aimed at reducing Russia’s prestige in the world, its range of friends and allies, and to paint it as the ‘evil other’ for the Western public, who are having their minds conditioned to prepare them for war.”

The presumption of guilt towards Russia has now converged over chemical weapons and Syria.

In rallying Washington and European allies to back Britain’s “economic war” against Russia, British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson this week said of conversations with his French counterpart: “The French government stressed particular concerns about Russia’s use of chemical weapons elsewhere, as is evident with their support to Assad’s murderous regime in Syria.”

State Department Spokesperson Heather Nauert © Mandel Ngan

On the basis of no evidence, dubious hearsay from terrorist-affiliated groups like the White Helmets, and the expedient presumption of guilt, Britain and its NATO allies are willing to go to war in Syria.

This week, US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley accused Syria and its Russian ally of carrying out chemical-weapons attacks, for which the “US is prepared to take military actions.”

All this should be a lesson on why there is such a thing as legal standards and due process as a safeguard for international order. Once certain states start to assert “presumption of guilt” towards others, then all pretense of upholding law and order collapses into a descent of chaos and conflict.

Attorney Christopher Black goes further. He says that Britain and its NATO allies are not just derelict in their duty to abide by law. “As in the latest reckless statements concerning Russia and the alleged poisoning in Britain, the case can be made that the British and their allies are in fact guilty of war crimes by inciting the conditions for war.”

Finally, there is one very obvious question that nobody seems to be asking, and that relates to the timing of Skripal’s alleged poisoning. Why would Russia do it now, just a week before the presidential election and three months before the World Cup?

It suggests total insanity on Moscow’s part. How could Russia possibly benefit from such an act? Skripal was previously in Russian custody and has lived in the UK for years. If Russia did want to poison him, as the UK has imagined, could it not have waited for a few more months?

It is not clear who benefitted from the inopportune timing of the incident, but certainly wasn’t Russia.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

Wednesday, March 14, 2018

Skripal crisis: Theresa May fires a blank shot

Measures announced today will bounce off Russia but will hurt Britain

ALEXANDER MERCOURISMarch 14, 2018, 17:52

Britain's Prime Minister Theresa May gives an election campaign speech to Conservative Party supporters in Norwich, June 7, 2017. REUTERS/Toby Melville - RTX39FHV

After days of hysteria and of mounting speculation, and after having stoked up by her statement on Monday expectations of stern action against Russia to stratospheric levels, Theresa May produced a package of ‘sanctions’ today which do no more than expose the weakness of Britain’s hand.

This is how the BBC describes them

Click here for the best news on Russia >>

The expulsion of 23 diplomats – who have one week to leave
Increased checks on private flights, customs and freight
The freezing of Russian state assets where there is evidence they may be used to threaten the life or property of UK nationals or residents
Ministers and Royal Family to boycott the Fifa World Cup in Russia later this year
The suspension of all planned high level bi-lateral contacts between the UK and Russia

Note that none of these sanctions include any of the supposedly draconian steps which have been spoken about over the last few days.

Theresa May for example appeared to rule out a blanket visa ban and sweeping asset freezes on wealthy Russians coming to London. It is clear that ideas for a boycott by the England team of the World Cup in Russia and for the complete severing of diplomatic relations with Russia have been abandoned if they were ever considered.

Reports in the media have also confirmed that the idea of launching a cyber attack against Russia has been ruled out, since the British quietly acknowledge that Russia has immeasurably greater cyber resources with which to retaliate than Britain does.

As to whether or not Ofcom will now strip RT of its broadcasting licence, Maria Zakharova’s threat to expel all British media outlets from Russia is having a chilling effect, with the British media apparently now quietly lobbying the British government against doing it.

By way of example, The Times of London, the newspaper which has been leading the British media’s offensive against RT, now has this to say, tucked away at the bottom of a meandering editorial with the woolly and meaningless headline ‘An Unstable World’

The Kremlin has threatened to expel British journalists from Moscow should London shut down the Russian propaganda channel RT. That would be ill advised. Britain stands for nothing if not free speech. Mrs May should stick to the evidence in the Skripal case, identifying the culprits and bringing maximum international force to bear to punish them personally.

It is interesting to see how the British media has suddenly discovers free speech also applies to Russian media when its own interests are threatened.

It is still possible that Ofcom may follow up on its threats against RT, but that is now looking rather less likely.

As for the measures Theresa May announced today not only will they not affect Russia in the slightest, but they are actually counterproductive.

The Russians are sure to respond to the British expulsion of Russian diplomats from London by expelling a comparable number of British diplomats from Moscow.

Since Russia is by far the more powerful country, it is the British who need to maintain a strong diplomatic presence in Moscow to retain relevance. By contrast Russia, as a Great Power, has no need to maintain a strong diplomatic presence in Britain, which is nowadays a second or even third rank power.

The reciprocal expulsions which are now going to happen will not therefore affect Russia’s position as a Great Power in the slightest. They will however further marginalise the British in international diplomacy.

The same is true of the British decision to sever bilateral contacts with Russia.

Apart from Boris Johnson’s recent ill-starred to Moscow, there have in fact been barely any bilateral contacts between the Russian and British governments for years, even though it is again Britain as the weaker country which needs these contacts in order to retain relevance, not Russia.

As it happens I expect the Russians to greet the news that they are going to be spared further meetings with Boris Johnson with a quiet sigh of relief.

As for Boris Johnson himself, how he hopes to cut an important figure in international diplomacy when he is now prevented from visiting Moscow – the capital of one of the world’s Great Powers – by his own government, completely escapes me. The reality is that no one takes him seriously anyway.

The reciprocal expulsions of diplomats will of course also make it more difficult for the British to maintain their intelligence operation in Moscow.

Since this appears to be rather extensive, and seems to involve far more ‘democracy promotion’ activity (ie. meddling in Russian domestic politics) than anything the Russians do in Britain, the Russians will probably also be quietly pleased about it.

Not surprisingly there have been media reports that the British intelligence community actually lobbied against large scale expulsions. It is not difficult to see why, with her locker largely empty there was little else Theresa May could do.

As for the non-attendance of British government ministers and members of the Royal Family at the World Cup, I doubt anyone would have noticed their presence there anyway. Certainly the Russians won’t be bothered if they don’t come. I doubt anyone else will care much either.

As for the threat to seize Russian state assets in Britain “where there is evidence they may be used to threaten the life or property of UK nationals or residents” that may sound ominous, but note that no actual seizures of Russian state assets were announced, and given that such seizures would almost certainly be contrary to international law and would undoubtedly provoke retaliatory action from Russia, I doubt they will happen.

In summary, Theresa May today looks like a conjuror who following a lengthy drum roll discovered she was holding an empty hat.

It is possible that the British may lobby for further action from their allies, and that more such action may come, but frankly I think the prospects of any significant action being taken against Russia by the Western allies at an international level are small.

Note for example the carefully worded readout the White House has provided of Donald Trump’s conversation with Theresa May

President Donald J. Trump spoke today with Prime Minister Theresa May of the United Kingdom. They discussed the United Kingdom’s investigation into the chemical weapon attack on a private citizen and his daughter on British soil. President Trump stated the United States stands in solidarity with its closest ally and is ready to provide any assistance the United Kingdom requests for its investigation. President Trump agreed with Prime Minister May that the Government of the Russian Federation must provide unambiguous answers regarding how this chemical weapon, developed in Russia, came to be used in the United Kingdom. The two leaders agreed on the need for consequences for those who use these heinous weapons in flagrant violation of international norms.

(bold italics added)

Contrary to what some reports in the British media were saying yesterday, it seems that the only assistance Donald Trump actually offered to Theresa May was assistance with the conduct of the investigation into the Skripal attack itself. There is no word here of help with action against Russia.

Theresa May did announce some other measures, which do not specifically target Russia. The Guardian describes them as follows

The government will enact a new targeted power to detain people suspected of hostile state activity at borders. This power was previously limited to suspected terrorists.
The government will look at whether new counter-espionage powers are needed

Britain already has sweeping anti-terrorism and counter-espionage laws, and there is concern that they are already being used in an increasingly arbitrary way. Beefing them up further should invite concern because of the threat to the rights of private individuals, not Russia..

Lastly, on the subject of the Skripal attack itself, the “increased checks on private flights, customs and freight” I take that as further proof that the British authorities do not know how the chemical which was used to attack Skripal was brought into Britain.

Of course based on the information about the investigation which has been released up to now there is also the possibility that the chemical used was produced in Britain. No one in authority in Britain – least of all Theresa May – is however going to say that.

In conclusion, Theresa May has done what she habitually does: take what appears to be an exceptionally strong stand, and then fail to act on it.

It will probably take some time for this to sink in in Britain itself, but eventually it is bound to do so, and when it does that will only damage her already tattered authority further.

In truth the British were reckless and foolish to enter into a confrontation on the flimsiest of evidence against Russia, a country far more powerful than themselves.

The package of measures Theresa May announced today simply highlights that fact. http://theduran.com/skripal-crisis-theresa-may-fires-blank/

Tuesday, March 13, 2018

fall-skripal-britisches-chemiewaffenlabor-und-kaltgestellter-maulwur

https://deutsch.rt.com/meinung/66585-fall-skripal-britisches-chemiewaffenlabor-und-kaltgestellter-maulwurf/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8xmbaK0hrg

Kann eine Reise von AFD-Mitgliedern nach Syrien friedenspolitisch bedeutsam sein?

Der Chef der CDU-CSU Bundestagsfraktion Kauderer findet das nicht.

Ein wichtiger Beitrag von Doris Auerbach auf der Schweizer Webseite politonline

Syrien - Ost-Ghuta 11.03.2018 19:36

d.a. Es hat den Anschein, als entwickle sich das Unter-die-lupe-nehmen der AfD langsam zu einer Art von Abgeordnetenobsession. Insbesondere greift man dabei mit Vorliebe auf den dauergeschmähten Populismus zurück, so auch Volker Kauder, seit 2005 Vorsitzender der CDU/CSU-Bundestagsfraktion, wenn es darum geht, der AfD etwas anzukreiden. Insofern erklärte er am 8. März: »Er sei zudem gespannt, ob die AfD in der Lage sei, sich bei Gesetzesberatungen vernünftig einzubringen oder ob sie weiter nur auf Populismus setze.« Ferner: »Wenn die AfD im Parlament mit Fakten schlampig oder vorsätzlich falsch umgehen sollte, werden wir dies klar benennen.«

So kam der CDU-Politiker auch nicht umhin, an der Reise der sieben AfD-Mitglieder nach Syrien scharfe Kritik zu äussern: »Man dürfe sich nicht mit Menschen treffen, ›die uns angedroht haben, unser Land zu bombardieren und hier Terroranschläge zu machen, und dann so zu tun, als wenn sie die größten Friedensengel wären.‹ Das ist abstoßend.« [1]

Gemeint damit ist Scheich Ahmad Badr al-Din Hassoun, die oberste religiöse Autorität in Syrien, der die AfD-Gruppe am 5. 3. 18 im Rahmen ihrer privat organisierten Reise empfing. Hassoun ruft alle syrischen Flüchtlinge dazu auf, in ihre Heimat zurückzukehren. Wie Dr. Christian Blex, MdL NRW, dazu erklärt, »habe der Großmufti wiederholt die Notwendigkeit einer strikten Trennung zwischen Staat und den Religionen erwähnt, um ein friedliches Zusammenleben verschiedener Religionen zu gewährleisten. Der islamische Glaubensmann, der als relativ moderat eingestuft wird, bedauerte, daß Erdogan, den er schon von der Studienzeit her kenne, diesen Weg mittlerweile verlassen habe.« [2]

Hierzu vermerkt Marcel Leubecher in der ›Welt‹ vom 6. 3. 18: »Was Blex wohl nicht wußte: Hassoun hatte in einer Ansprache im syrischen Fernsehen im Oktober 2011 mit Terroranschlägen in Europa und den Vereinigten Staaten gedroht, falls es Angriffe auf Syrien gebe. ›Wenn die erste Bombe auf Syrien fällt, sind alle Söhne und Töchter Syriens und des Libanons bereit, auf dem Boden Europas oder Palästinas zu Selbstmordattentätern zu werden‹, sagte der Prediger damals. ›Ich sage zu allen in Europa und Amerika: Wir werden Selbstmordattentäter einsetzen, die bereits in euren Ländern sind‹!« Damit bezog er sich vermutlich nicht auf islamistisch motivierte Attacken, sondern auf Racheakte gegen eine eventuelle Einmischung westlicher Länder in die Auseinandersetzungen in Syrien.« [3]

Was nun Kauder in seiner Anklage nicht erwähnte, deckte die ›Junge Freiheit‹ auf: »Der Großmufti Ahmad Badr al-Din Hassoun nahm 2010 an einem Kongreß in Berlin teil – auf Einladung der CDU-nahen Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung.« Wer also geht hier schlampig mit Fakten um, die AfD oder Herr Kauder selbst?

Wie die ›Badische Zeitung‹ vom 19. Mai 2010 festhielt, hatte ihre Mitarbeiterin Annemarie Rösch mit dem Großmufti, der, wie es hiess, auf Einladung der Universität Freiburg und der Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung auch in Freiburg weilte, ein Interview geführt. Hierzu führte der Bericht der ›BZ‹ folgendes aus: Hassoun war 8 Jahre lang Mitglied des syrischen Parlaments. 2008 hatte Hassoun vor dem Europaparlament in Straßburg eine Rede gehalten, in der er sich für einen stärkeren Dialog zwischen den Religionen aussprach. Er nahm auch am zweiten Ökumenischen Kirchentag in München teil. Hassoun vertritt bezüglich der Trennung von Religion und Staat die Sicht, »daß der Islam wie das Christentum Religion und Leben sind, nicht Religion und Staat. Ich finde, daß die Religion nichts in der Politik verloren hat. Ich finde auch, daß politische Parteien nicht ›islamisch‹ oder ›christlich‹ in ihrem Namen führen sollten.« Auf die Frage, ob man so auch das ›christlich‹ aus dem Parteinnamen der CDU verbannen sollte, antwortete er: »Ja. Die Religion hat in einem Parteinamen nichts verloren. Ich habe nichts dagegen, daß eine Partei christliche oder islamische Werte vertritt. Nur sollte sie die Religion nicht im Namen führen. Ich bin für eine strikte Trennung von Religion und Staat.« [4]

Die Abgeordneten erhoffen sich ausführliche Einblicke in die Lebensverhältnisse in den befreiten Gebieten und die Bemühungen des syrischen Staats, die Dienstleistungen für zurückkehrende Flüchtlinge zu gewährleisten. Im Augenblick läuft der Familiennachzug für Hunderttausende in Deutschland lebende Syrer auf Hochtouren. Da die mediale Berichterstattung in Deutschland keine vertrauenswürdige Möglichkeit zur Einschätzung der tatsächlichen Situation in Syrien darstellt, sollte es die Reise laut Blex ermöglichen, sich vor Ort ein Bild von der humanitären Situation in Syrien und den Wiederaufbauarbeiten in den von den Terroristen befreiten Gebieten zu machen. [5]

Nun ist die Berichterstattung westlicher Medien zu Syrien seit Beginn des US-geplanten brutalen Angriffs auf das Land umstritten. So schreibt auch Karin Leukefeld: »Die Darstellung des Geschehens in Syrien ist ausgewählt und geprägt von wiederholten, kampagnenartigen Medienhypes. Bestimmte Meldungen werden aufgebauscht und übertrieben, und selbst wenn ein Nachrichtensprecher sagt, daß man das Gemeldete ›nicht unabhängig überprüfen‹ könne, wird es dennoch gemeldet. Die Öffentlichkeit wird beeinflußt, die Stimmung geschürt; auf diese Weise will man Strafmaßnahmen gegen Syrien, von der politischen Isolation über Sanktionen bis hin zu militärischen Angriffen, vorbereiten. Dadurch werden der Öffentlichkeit lediglich Teileinsichten vermittelt.

Rußland, der Iran und die syrische Regierung werden von der Bundesregierung angeprangert, obwohl es Deutschland ist, das im Bündnis mit den USA, Großbritannien, Frankreich, Jordanien, Saudi-Arabien sowie Israel Wege zu einer möglichen Aufteilung Syriens erörtert. Hinzu kommt, daß die von Deutschland unterstützte syrische Opposition Meldungen verbreitet, die ihr Anliegen, den Sturz der syrischen Regierung herbeizuführen, fördern.« [6]

Die Anprangerung Russlands

hat inzwischen Tradition: »Massaker! schreit es aus dem Kanzleramt. Und im ganzen Land dröhnt das Echo«, vermerkt Uli Gellermann in seinem mit ›Merkels Massaker - In Berlin gepflanzt, in Ost-Ghuta geerntet‹ betitelten Artikel. »Und wer, glaubt man Merkel und ihren Epigonen, ist schuld am Krieg um Ost-Ghuta: Das Assad-Regime und ›ganz besonders der Iran und Rußland‹. Immer noch benutzt Merkel in solchen Fällen ihre Kleinmädchenstimme, die klingt besonders glaubhaft. Merkels Stimme war indessen damals, als im Januar 2012 am idyllischen Ludwigkirchplatz in Berlin-Wilmersdorf, rund 50 syrische Oppositionelle auf Einladung des Auswärtigen Amtes zusammentrafen, nicht zu hören. Das aus deutschen Steuermitteln geförderte Projekt nannte sich ›The Day After‹ und hatte nur ein Ziel: Das syrische Fell zu verteilen. Klar war auch, daß dafür zuvor dringend der syrische Präsident Baschar al-Assad erlegt werden müsse. So forderte auch Merkel einen ›politischen Übergang‹ in Syrien, ›an dessen Ende Assad nicht mehr im Amt sein kann‹. Assad muß weg: Das war aus dem US-Präsidial-Büro zu hören, das skandierten nahezu alle Medien der westlichen Welt. Und ob er nun tot oder lebendig ›weg‹ sein sollte, das hatten die Schreier nie so genau festgelegt.« [7]

Einem Bericht von Walter Ehret zufolge hat sich bei den Ortsbegehungen der Politiker herausgestellt, dass Aleppo keine zerstörte Stadt ist und Homs nicht aus einem unbewohnbaren Ruinengerippe besteht. Entgegen der Darstellungen unserer Medien verfüge Syrien offenbar über eine intakte Infrastruktur und eine gute Versorgung. Der eigentliche Anlass für die Syrienvisite der AfD-Delegierten war ihr Antrag auf Rückführung der 700.000 in Deutschland lebenden Syrer und die Einstufung Syriens als sicheres Herkunftsland auf Grund der veränderten Sicherheitslage. Immerhin wendet die BRD nach Einschätzungen der Wirtschaftsinstitute gesamtwirtschaftlich jährlich die gewaltige Summe von 50 Milliarden € für die Flüchtlingsversorgung auf, wobei allein der Bund nach AfD-Angaben jährlich rund 23 Milliarden direkter Hilfe bereitstellt. Syrien ist inzwischen tatsächlich zu etwa 90 % befriedet, weitgehend unter der Kontrolle der Regierung von al-Assad und im Wiederaufbau begriffen. Nennenswerte militärische Konflikte spielen sich gegenwärtig noch entlang der türkischen Grenze und in der Damaskus vorgelagerten Region Ost-Ghuta ab. Wie es heisst, wurden inzwischen über 100.000 feindliche Kämpfer durch die Regierung begnadigt und wieder ins bürgerliche Zivilleben integriert. Abkommen zwischen den einzelnen Religions- und Interessengruppen und der Regierung machen Syriens 14 Provinzen zu weitgehend sicheren Lebensräumen. Der syrische Minister für Versöhnung, Ali Haidar, rief am 6. März explizit auch die Deutschlandflüchlinge noch einmal öffentlich dazu auf, heimzukehren. Syrien sei objektiv willens und in der Lage, seine Staatsbürger wieder aufzunehmen, sicher unterzubringen und zu versorgen. Als Fazit bleibt am Ende deshalb festzustellen: Es gibt tatsächlich keinen ersichtlichen Grund, warum die syrischen Kriegsflüchtlinge nicht in ihre Heimat zurückkehren sollten. Die Politik ist es deshalb den steuerzahlenden Bürgern schuldig, umgehend die geordnete Rückführung derselben in die Wege zu leiten. [8]

Wie am 9. März gemeldet, haben die Rebellen mit ihren Familien am Freitagabend, 9. 3., mit dem Abzug aus Ghuta begonnen. Die Jihadisten der al-Kaida-nahen Organisation Tahrir al-Sham, vormals die al-Nusra Front, sollen in die Provinz Idlib evakuiert werden, die vollständig von den Aufständischen kontrolliert wird. Das Jihadistenbündnis ist von der Feuerpause, die die UNO gefordert hat, ausgenommen. [9]

Spätestens hier stellt sich die Frage, wieso keine Gefangennahme derselben erfolgt, und wieso man sie im Gegensatz zu einer solchen Massnahme noch dazu in ein Gebiet abwandern lässt, das sich offenbar vollständig in den Händen des Dschihads befindet. Zieht man die nachfolgende aktuelle Meldung vom 9. 3. hinzu, so muss bei jedem der Verdacht von Absprachen aufkommen, deren Abmachungen uns wie so oft ganz einfach vorenthalten werden: »Aus dem Etat des US-Verteidigungsministeriums geht hervor, daß die Vereinigten Staaten 10.000 syrische ›Rebellen‹ auf der Gehaltsliste haben. Washington will die Anzahl dieser Sold-Empfänger nun auf bis zu 65.000 erhöhen.«

Wozu? Zur Aufrechterhaltung des Krieges?

»Das Pentagon plant, diese Armee komplett auszurüsten, auszubilden und weiter zu versorgen. Es ist nicht das erste Mal, daß Washington versucht, in Syrien eine Proxy Armee heranzuzüchten. Die bisherige Bilanz solcher Pläne ist jedoch eine Geschichte grandiosen Scheiterns. Nicht selten sind Kämpfer mit ihren Waffen zum Feind übergelaufen.« [10]

Der syrische Präsident hat sich am 4. 3. wie folgt geäussert: »Die US-geführte Koalition unterstützt die Terrormilizen Islamischer Staat und Dschabhat al-Nusra. Hat denn jemand gehört, daß die Koalition seit dem gesetzeswidrigen Bombardement und der Verletzung des Luftraums von Syrien irgendein Ergebnis im Kampf gegen den IS erzielt hat? Hat sie wenigstens eine Position des IS zerbombt? Nein. Wir können sagen, daß diese Allianz im Grunde genommen eine Luftwaffe des IS ist. .…. Damaskus wird weiter gegen den Terror kämpfen. In diesem Zusammenhang wird die Operation in Ost-Ghuta fortgesetzt. Parallel dazu werden für die Zivilbevölkerung Möglichkeiten geschaffen, das umkämpfte Gebiet zu verlassen.«

Eine unheilige Allianz

»Die USA«, legt Izzedin Musa dar, »bilden mit den Briten und Franzosen eine unheilige Allianz, die den Islamischen Staat angeblich bekämpfen will, jedoch ist das Gegenteil der Fall. Zusammen mit dem zionistischen Regime haben sie den IS mit Waffen, Munition und anderem Kriegsgerät beliefert. Die USA haben Raqqa und Mosul dem Erdboden gleichgemacht, wohl stets, um den IS zu schützen und ihm den Abzug zu sichern, damit sie diesen nach Bedarf woanders einsetzen können. In beiden Städten wurden Tausende von Zivilisten mit ›guten‹ US-Bomben ermordet. Inzwischen ist der IS fast besiegt und die USA haben dafür gesorgt, daß die Terroristen freies Geleit bekamen. Sie werden weiterhin von den USA und den Golfdemokratien bezahlt und für den nächsten Einsatz trainiert. Obwohl illegal in Syrien, weigern sich die USA, Syrien zu verlassen. Sie haben sich im Nordosten, östlich des Euphrats, völkerrechtswidrig eingenistet, wo sie 30.000 Kurden militärisch ausbilden und gegen das Assad-Regime einsetzen wollen. In diesem Gebiet befinden sich immense Öl- und Gasvorkommen, die den US-Energiehunger stillen können.

Die Resolution des UN-Sicherheitsrates 2401 vom 25. Februar ist von den USA und ihren Vasallen dazu bestimmt, den Terrorgruppen in Ghuta eine Atempause zu verschaffen, damit diese erneut bis an die Zähne bewaffnet werden können, um das syrische System doch noch zu stürzen. Dafür haben die USA einen scheinbar neutralen Kuwaiti und einen noch neutraleren Schweizer ausgesucht, die den Resolutionsentwurf einbringen sollten. Sie haben jedoch nicht bedacht, daß ihr schmutziges und hinterhältiges Spiel durchschaut worden ist. Schließlich, nach erheblichen Korrekturen, wurde die Resolution einstimmig verabschiedet, erwies sich jedoch im Nachhinein als eine Farce. Die Russen sind die einzige seriöse Partei in diesem mörderischen Spiel. Der Islamische Staat ist eine Kreation der USA, quasi ein Abfallprodukt des Irakkriegs, geschaffen, um die gesamte Region in viele kleine Teile zu zerstückeln, für die eigenen und für die Interessen des zionistischen Gebildes.

Die Lösung des Syrienproblems ist sehr einfach. Der Westen muß damit aufhören, die islamistischen Mörderbanden und Söldner zu finanzieren und zu bewaffnen. Er muß einfach aus Syrien verschwinden. Die westliche Doppelmoral ist unerträglich. Eine andere Lösung gibt es nicht.« [11]

»Entgegen aller Berichterstattung«, schrieb ›Der Spiegel‹ bereits Ende November 2016, »dürfte die Öffentlichkeit wenigstens von der einen Wahrheit durchdrungen sein, daß Syrien ohne den Eingriff Rußlands längst dem Ziel der USA, diesen zu teilen, erlegen wäre. …… Offensichtlich nicht so Herr Kauder, der am 29. 11. 16 indirekt zu Kundgebungen gegen die Syrienpolitik des russischen Präsidenten Wladimir Putin aufgerufen hatte.« [12]

[1] https://jungefreiheit.de/politik/deutschland/2018/afd-reden-union-kuendigt-faktenchecks-an/   8. 3. 18
[2] https://www.journalistenwatch.com/2018/03/06/afd-syrienreise-grossmufti-fordert-syrer-zur-heimkehr-auf/ 6. 3. 18 AfD-Syrienreise: Großmufti fordert Syrer zur Heimkehr auf
[3] https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article174233058/Syrien-AfD-Politiker-besuchen-Assads-Grossmufti.html   6. 3. 18 AfD-Politiker besuchen Assads Großmufti - Von Marcel Leubecher
[4] ›Badische Zeitung vom 19. Mai 2010; Interview mit dem Großmufti von Syrien, Scheich Ahmad Badr al-Din Hassoun
[5] https://www.journalistenwatch.com/2018/03/05/syrien-besuch-von-afd-abgeordneten-des-bundestages-und-landtages/ 5. 3. 18
[6] https://deutsch.rt.com/meinung/66212-wie-ausgewaehlte-darstellung-in-medien-und-politik-das-bild-von-syrien-in-deutschland-praegt/   7. 3. 18
Syrien-Krieg: Die selektive Darstellung der Medien und der Politik in Deutschland - von Karin Leukefeld
[7] https://de.sputniknews.com/kommentare/20180226319709306-merkel-massaker-naher-osten/    8. 3. 18   Merkels Massaker - In Berlin gepflanzt, in Ost-Ghuta geerntet Uli Gellermann
[8] http://www.pi-news.net/2018/03/der-syrienbesuch-der-afd-zerstoert-das-fluechtlingsmaerchen/    9. 3. 18 Walter Ehret
[9] http://www.krone.at/1662450    9. 3. 18
[10] https://deutsch.rt.com/international/66347-syrien-usa-bezahlen-sold-an-rebellen/   9. 3. 18
[11] http://freiepalaestinastimme.blogspot.ch/2018/02/amerika-es-reicht.html Dr. Izzedin Musa Wachtberg, den 25. 2. 2018[12] http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/volker-kauder-vermisst-anti-putin-demonstrationen-in-deutschland-a-1123682.html   29. 11. 16

Quelle:

http://www.politonline.ch/?content=news&newsid=2771