UN chief renews call on Syria to end crackdown on protesters

[News_Editor]

UN chief renews call on Syria to end crackdown on protesters

2011-09-28 09:28:53 GMT+7 (ICT)

UNITED NATIONS (BNO NEWS) -- The United Nations (UN) on Tuesday reiterated its call on the Syrian Government to end its crackdown on pro-democracy protesters and to cooperate with the UN's Commission of Inquiry tasked with investigating alleged human rights abuses.

During a meeting with Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moualem, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon reiterated the call he has made on numerous occasions for an end to the violence. In addition, Ban repeated his call for a genuine process to fulfill the legitimate aspirations of the people for comprehensive political change, according to information released by his spokesperson.

Also on Tuesday, Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs B. Lynn Pascoe said that the increase in Syrian nationals seeking refuge across the border in Lebanon is a reflection of the "escalating political and human rights crisis" in Syria.

"The polarization continues to deepen between the Syrian regime, which appears determined to pursue its policy of violent repression despite international and regional calls to change course, and a growing popular opposition that has continued to organize protests across the country," Pascoe said in a briefing to the UN Security Council.

Some 2,700 people have been killed in Syria since March when the pro-democracy protests – part of a broader wave of uprisings across the Middle East and North Africa – began.

The UN Human Rights Council has ordered an inquiry into the violence after an earlier UN fact-finding mission outlined a litany of Government abuses, including murders, enforced disappearances and acts of torture. Three experts have been appointed to carry out the probe.

Pascoe went on to call on Syria to cooperation with the Commission of Inquiry, whose members are in Geneva this week to discuss their program and methods of work, and establish contacts with relevant stakeholders.

"We underline the importance of accountability for all human rights violations committed in Syria since March, and hope that the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic will extend its full cooperation to the Commission," Pascoe underlined.

-- © BNO News All rights reserved 2011-09-28

[maidu]

Yes, Mr. Ban means well. He's like a neighbor of a man who has a pack of attack trained dogs. He can talk over the fence and ask him not to let his dogs loose on the people in his (the dog owning neighbor's) extended family, .....but what more can he do?

Ok, maybe if he had some of the genetic make-up of a Rommel or Patton, he would mobilize the other neighbors to show up in force and dynamically snuff out the problem. That's what I'd do, but I'm not Sec.Gen of the UN.

[Steely Dan]

Perhaps when all the protesters have been shot or gassed there will be no longer any need for the UN to renew calls to Syria to stop the crackdown - problem solved.

[up-country_sinclair]

Syria should immediately end the violent repression of its people, and if it does not, some type of military action may be required.

[chuckd]

Syria should immediately end the violent repression of its people, and if it does not, some type of military action may be required.

By whom and in what manner?

[up-country_sinclair]

Syria should immediately end the violent repression of its people, and if it does not, some type of military action may be required.

By whom and in what manner?

Well, since you've asked (curiously without offering your opinion), I would suggest the following course of action: direct and back channel diplomacy, followed by meaningful economic sanctions, and if no progress is made, NATO air strikes.

[chuckd]

Syria should immediately end the violent repression of its people, and if it does not, some type of military action may be required.

By whom and in what manner?

Well, since you've asked (curiously without offering your opinion), I would suggest the following course of action: direct and back channel diplomacy, followed by meaningful economic sanctions, and if no progress is made, NATO air strikes.

Why should I offer an opinion to a rhetorical statement?

You made the supposition, I merely asked what action you might propose.

Curiously you proposed the same action that has been taken in Libya, having learned little from that ongoing adventure.

[up-country_sinclair]

Why should I offer an opinion to a rhetorical statement?

An opinion on the OP, chuckd. The OP.

Curiously you proposed the same action that has been taken in Libya, having learned little from that ongoing adventure.

This thread is not about Libya (again, chuckd, it goes back to the OP), yet despite all evidence to the contrary, you seem to be suggesting that NATO operations in Libya have not been a success. And of course you realize that NATO began operations in Libya in March 2011, right? Not 2001 or 2003.

Edited September 28, 2011 by up-country_sinclair

[chuckd]

Why should I offer an opinion to a rhetorical statement?

An opinion on the OP, chuckd. The OP.

Curiously you proposed the same action that has been taken in Libya, having learned little from that ongoing adventure.

This thread is not about Libya (again, chuckd, it goes back to the OP), yet despite all evidence to the contrary, you seem to be suggesting that NATO operations in Libya have not been a success. And of course you realize that NATO began operations in Libya in March 2011, right? Not 2001 or 2003.

Nowhere in the OP does it state that some military action might be required. That was your statement.

I never claimed the thread was about Libya. I merely said your proposed action of NATO air strikes in Syria was hauntingly similar to the action taken by NATO in Libya.

A discussion of when the action in Libya began is, however, off topic. You may choose to pursue that line of thought if you wish.

[up-country_sinclair]

Why should I offer an opinion to a rhetorical statement?

An opinion on the OP, chuckd. The OP.

Curiously you proposed the same action that has been taken in Libya, having learned little from that ongoing adventure.

This thread is not about Libya (again, chuckd, it goes back to the OP), yet despite all evidence to the contrary, you seem to be suggesting that NATO operations in Libya have not been a success. And of course you realize that NATO began operations in Libya in March 2011, right? Not 2001 or 2003.

Nowhere in the OP does it state that some military action might be required. That was your statement.

I never claimed the thread was about Libya. I merely said your proposed action of NATO air strikes in Syria was hauntingly similar to the action taken by NATO in Libya.

A discussion of when the action in Libya began is, however, off topic. You may choose to pursue that line of thought if you wish.

C'mon chuckd, you can muster up an opinion about OP on this thread, can't you?

You're 0-3 so far.

Edited September 28, 2011 by up-country_sinclair

[up-country_sinclair]

Russia and China have threatened to veto economic sanctions on Syria causing the US and European nations to rethink their strategy.

http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-world/western-powers-drop-syria-sanctions-call-20110928-1kvuv.html

[chuckd]

An opinion on the OP, chuckd. The OP.

Curiously you proposed the same action that has been taken in Libya, having learned little from that ongoing adventure.

This thread is not about Libya (again, chuckd, it goes back to the OP), yet despite all evidence to the contrary, you seem to be suggesting that NATO operations in Libya have not been a success. And of course you realize that NATO began operations in Libya in March 2011, right? Not 2001 or 2003.

Nowhere in the OP does it state that some military action might be required. That was your statement.

I never claimed the thread was about Libya. I merely said your proposed action of NATO air strikes in Syria was hauntingly similar to the action taken by NATO in Libya.

A discussion of when the action in Libya began is, however, off topic. You may choose to pursue that line of thought if you wish.

C'mon chuckd, you can muster up an opinion about OP on this thread, can't you?

You're 0-3 so far.

Yeah, sure I can manage to muster up an opinion. Why are you so anxious to hear it?

You ain't exactly batting a thousand either.

[up-country_sinclair]

0-4

Anyway, here are the current sanctions the US has imposed on Syria:

There are currently three types of sanctions that the U.S. government has imposed against Syria. The most comprehensive sanction, called the Syria Accountability Act (SAA) of 2004, prohibits the export of most goods containing more than 10% U.S.-manufactured component parts to Syria. Another sanction, resulting from the USA Patriot Act, was levied specifically against the Commercial Bank of Syria in 2006. The third type of sanction contains many Executive Orders from the President that specifically deny certain Syrian citizens and entities access to the U.S. financial system due to their participation in proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, association with Al Qaida, the Taliban or Osama bin Laden; or destabilizing activities in Iraq and Lebanon.

http://damascus.usembassy.gov/sanctions-syr.html

Edited September 28, 2011 by up-country_sinclair

[Ulysses G.]

Russia and China have threatened to veto economic sanctions on Syria

Well, at least Russia and China are consistant about backing the black hats.

[Steely Dan]

Russia and China have threatened to veto economic sanctions on Syria

Well, at least Russia and China are consistant about backing the black hats.

Their stance on freedom for the Syrian people is in marked contrast to their voting intentions with respect to the Palestinians.

[chuckd]

0-4

Anyway, here are the current sanctions the US has imposed on Syria:

There are currently three types of sanctions that the U.S. government has imposed against Syria. The most comprehensive sanction, called the Syria Accountability Act (SAA) of 2004, prohibits the export of most goods containing more than 10% U.S.-manufactured component parts to Syria. Another sanction, resulting from the USA Patriot Act, was levied specifically against the Commercial Bank of Syria in 2006. The third type of sanction contains many Executive Orders from the President that specifically deny certain Syrian citizens and entities access to the U.S. financial system due to their participation in proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, association with Al Qaida, the Taliban or Osama bin Laden; or destabilizing activities in Iraq and Lebanon.

http://damascus.usembassy.gov/sanctions-syr.html

Since your desired path of diplomacy first seems to have failed, are we now in the sanctions stage?

Should these sanctions fail to provide the desired results, would you then suggest we unleash NATO?

[up-country_sinclair]

Well that's 0-5 on proffering an opinion on the OP.

Now then, on to your queries:

Since your desired path of diplomacy first seems to have failed, are we now in the sanctions stage?

As noted in post # 11, discussions about sanctions are currently ongoing due to China and Russia threatening a veto at the UN(have you been paying attention, chuckd?).

So yes, this could reasonably be considered the beginning of the sanctions stage.

Should these sanctions fail to provide the desired results, would you then suggest we unleash NATO?

Again as noted in post # 6 (in response to YOUR question ), yes, I think that NATO bombings should be on the table if diplomacy and sanctions prove ineffective.

Edited September 28, 2011 by up-country_sinclair

[Steely Dan]

Well that's 0-5 on proffering an opinion on the OP.

Now then, on to your queries:

Since your desired path of diplomacy first seems to have failed, are we now in the sanctions stage?

As noted in post # 11, discussions about sanctions are currently ongoing due to China and Russia threatening a veto at the UN(have you been paying attention, chuckd?).

So yes, this could reasonably be considered the beginning of the sanctions stage.

Should these sanctions fail to provide the desired results, would you then suggest we unleash NATO?

Again as noted in post # 6 (in response to YOUR question ), yes, I think that NATO bombings should be on the table if diplomacy and sanctions prove ineffective.

Your belated concern over the plight of the Syrian civilians is indeed touching, however you may be surprised to learn it's been going on for months and Assad has racked up a death toll of at least 2,700. Incidentally Iran has been instrumental in propping up the Assad regime sending revolutionary guards to teach the Syrians how best to murder their population. Presumably if it does come to Nato intervention you will be rooting for them instead of the Iran/Syria axis.

[chuckd]

Well that's 0-5 on proffering an opinion on the OP.

Now then, on to your queries:

Since your desired path of diplomacy first seems to have failed, are we now in the sanctions stage?

As noted in post # 11, discussions about sanctions are currently ongoing due to China and Russia threatening a veto at the UN(have you been paying attention, chuckd?).

So yes, this could reasonably be considered the beginning of the sanctions stage.

Should these sanctions fail to provide the desired results, would you then suggest we unleash NATO?

Again as noted in post # 6 (in response to YOUR question ), yes, I think that NATO bombings should be on the table if diplomacy and sanctions prove ineffective.

It can hardly be considered the beginning of the sanctions stage since the US and the EU have already imposed sanctions. I would say we are in the middle of the sanctions stage that you propose and I see little indication the sanctions are working.

By the way, NATO bombings have always been on the table. My question to you was would you suggest we unleash NATO. Answer?

Perhaps you should work a little more on your answers and cut down on your attempts at sarcasm.

[Credo]

What would Turkey's reaction be to a NATO intervention?

[koheesti]

What would Turkey's reaction be to a NATO intervention?

They are part of NATO so they would either assist or withdraw from the organization - IMO.

Edited September 28, 2011 by koheesti

[koheesti]

Russia and China have threatened to veto economic sanctions on Syria

Well, at least Russia and China are consistant about backing the black hats.

They are very consitent. As I mentioned in another thread, their goal is to make things difficult for the USA as each of their UNSC votes have shown for years.

[Credo]

The OP mentions refugees in Lebanon. I remember some time back there were quite a few in Turkey as well. Any idea how many people have fled to nearby countries, like Turkey and Lebanon?

Once you start getting significant numbers of refugees, then countries start turning up the heat.

[Steely Dan]

Human rights groups just raised the estimated death toll to 3,600. How many deaths is deemed sufficient to conclude sanctions ain't working?

[geriatrickid]

The OP mentions refugees in Lebanon. I remember some time back there were quite a few in Turkey as well. Any idea how many people have fled to nearby countries, like Turkey and Lebanon?

Once you start getting significant numbers of refugees, then countries start turning up the heat.

Turkey was trying to stop the flow of refugees.

In any case, there cannot be NATO action as Turkey has annoited itself as the arab world's new saviour and leader. I recommend that Mr. Erdogan sort it out. He has standing in that neck of the woods. However, he needs some time to slaughter some more Kurds before he can fix Syria. Not to worry though as the Ottoman Empire will rise again, much as Mussolini dusted off the old Roman Legions concept.

[up-country_sinclair]

Human rights groups just raised the estimated death toll to 3,600. How many deaths is deemed sufficient to conclude sanctions ain't working?

So just to confirm, you're suggesting that government policy should be determined by estimates made by human right's groups.

Are you sure about that? Think hard.

[Steely Dan]

Human rights groups just raised the estimated death toll to 3,600. How many deaths is deemed sufficient to conclude sanctions ain't working?

So just to confirm, you're suggesting that government policy should be determined by estimates made by human right's groups.

Are you sure about that? Think hard.

Yes silly me, let's wait for the official Syrian government stats to be published.

[chuckd]

Hot air, mostly.

[Scott]

Inflammatory post and reply to it have been deleted.

Please stay on the topic and not on the poster.

[up-country_sinclair]

Syrian opposition groups are requesting a "no fly" zone from the UN.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203405504576599150728062020.html

Any thoughts or opinion on this development?

Edited September 29, 2011 by up-country_sinclair