The title of a recently released Al-Jazeera article is “RUSSIA to back Annan’s Syria peace plan” (Web-site/URL: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/03/201232041855953883.html). REALLY?
“Russia says it is ready to support France’s presidential statement to the UN endorsing Kofi Annan’s plan for settling (?) the Syrian crisis”. “the Syrian crisis” IS A LONG WAY FROM BEING “settled”.
“BUT Sergei Lavrov, Russia’s foreign minister, said on Tuesday (March 20, 2012) that the statement SHOULD NOT turn into an ultimatum to the Syrian government, which has set the stage for tough bargaining over the wording of the document at the UN Security Council”. “but” and “should not turn into an ultimatum to the Syrian government” ARE NOT statements supporting Annan.
“First talks on the statement will be held on Tuesday (March 20, 2012), and France’s UN envoy Gerard Araud said he HOPED it would be adopted the same day“. FRANCE and RUSSIA were on the same team when both countries opposed the second US invasion of IRAQ. Now, these two countries are on OPPOSING teams.
“Araud said it is “VERY LIMITED” to Annan’s mission in a bid to reduce any potential opposition” obviously. Countries that oppose Assad are “very limited” in terms of what they can do, because most of these countries DON’T want to use force/put boots on the ground within Syria’s borders. “It’s really THE LEAST CONTROVERSIAL text that we could enter“, except to the RUSSIANS and the CHINESE.
“The statement calls on Assad and Syria’s opposition to “implement fully and IMMEDIATELY (?)“ Kofi Annan’s six-point peace plan”. Of course, as we know, POLITICIANS WON’T do anything “immediately”. “It says the council will “CONSIDER further measures” if nothing is done WITHIN seven days of any adoption”. “consider”, again most likely means/= NOT DOING ANYTHING and as far as “within seven days” is concerned, when was the last time POLITICIANS observed/met deadlines?
Lavrov released the following statement: “The Security Council should support them NOT as an ultimatum, but as a basis for the continuing efforts by Kofi Annan aimed at REACHING ACCORD (?) between ALL the Syrians, the government and ALL opposition groups on ALL key issues, such as HUMANITARIAN CORRIDORS, halting hostilities by ALL PARTIES, THE BEGINNING OF a political dialogue and offering access to the media“. IS THIS POSSIBLE? And more importantly, is this what the Russians TRULY believe? As we know, “political dialogues” often DON’T ACHIEVE ANYTHING SIGNIFICANT.
On Monday (March 19, 2012), the (Russian) foreign ministry called on the Syrian government “and all ARMED GROUPS who oppose it” to agree to ceasefires “without delay“, after ICRC President Jakob Kellenberger held talks with Lavrov on Monday (March 19, 2012)”. Russia “BACKS Annan’s Syria’s peace plan” and yet is still copying BASHAR AL-ASSAD‘s use of the term “armed groups”, which DOESN’T MAKE ANY SENSE.
“Moscow HAD (?) called for the ICRC to have access to “those detained in Syria for their participation in protests“. “had?” So they’re NOT “calling for” this NOW? THIS IS DEEPLY TROUBLING.
“Kellenberger said Russia’s support for its appeal was “VERY IMPORTANT” and that he noted it with “SATISFACTION and GRATITUDE“, implying that Kellenberger is KISSING RUSSIA’s ASS.
According to Sarah Leah Whitson, “Middle East director of Human Rights Watch [HRW]”, “The Syrian government’s brutal tactics CANNOT justify abuses by ARMED OPPOSITION GROUPS (?)” “armed opposition groups?” SARAH LEAH WHITSON is talking like BASHAR AL-ASSAD and VLADIMIR PUTIN talking about “armed groups”, “armed terrorist groups” or “armed gangs”. WHAT’S GOING ON HERE?
Finally, “In an open letter, the group (HRW) has urged the opposition to condemn the abuses”. “Opposition leaders should make it clear to their followers that they MUST NOT torture, kidnap or execute UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES“. THIS WILL BE DIFFICULT, especially in the middle of A KILLING FEST.
So, “Russia to back Annan’s Syria peace plan?” It sure DOESN’T sound like it. The Russian Foreign Ministry and people like SERGEI LAVROV are still talking about “armed groups”, which is still exactly like BASHAR AL-ASSAD.