Topic: Protests in Syria
- Obama Recognizes Syrian Opposition
- Syrian Opposition In For Dialog - Russian FM
- US Denies Arming Syrian Opposition
- UN Peace Envoy Discusses Syrian Opposition’s Offer for Talks
- Syrian Opposition Rejects Assad’s Peace Plan
WASHINGTON, March 12 (RIA Novosti) - The United States will keep supporting the Syrian opposition as that is the only possible way to resolve the conflict in the country, the US State Department said Monday.
“We remain committed to trying to support both the Syrian Opposition Coalition and others inside Syria who believe in using [the agreement reached last summer in] Geneva and trying now to implement it,” State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland told a daily press briefing.
“We think that’s the best way to end the violence,” Nuland said.
At a meeting on Syria in Geneva on June 30, 2012, foreign ministers from UN Security Council permanent member states and from countries neighboring Syria proposed establishing a transitional Syrian government that would comprise both the Syrian authorities and opposition forces.
The state secretary also said Monday her country and Russia have different interpretations of how the situation in Syria could be resolved.
“From our perspective, there’s no way that mutual consent would ever be given to [Syrian President Bashar] Assad or regime members with blood on their hands,” Nuland said.
“The Russians continue to have their own interpretation. In our conversations with them, we have encouraged them to use their influence with the Assad regime to get it to embrace Geneva and begin working on how it could be implemented,” she said. “From our perspective, that obviously has to be done without Assad.”
About 70,000 people have died in Syria since the start of the uprising against President Assad in March 2011, according to UN figures. Russia, along with China, has faced widespread condemnation over its refusal to approve UN sanctions against Assad’s regime.
Moscow has repeatedly stated it has no interest in seeing Assad remain in power, but is rather concerned that unilateral sanctions would create a power vacuum that would lead to more violence.
Add to blog
You may place this material on your blog by copying the link.
- bielecIrrational excuse for illegal meddling07:58, 12/03/2013Just imagine what the British or the US government would do, if armed rebels in New York or London started to kill or kidnap civilians, attack security forces and army units, assassinate politicians, and destroy civilian infrastructure. Restoring law and order is a duty of any government.
The argument of "democracy" is totally unrealistic. There is no democracy in the U.S, or in Britain, or in Saudi Arabia, or in Turkey, or in Qatar, or in any other country that supports the terrorist and criminal rebels in Syria.
The "democracy" argument serves as a tool to spread civil unrest for the benefit of very specific interests abroad. These interests don't have anything to do with democracy.
If ending the unrest and promoting democracy were the goal, we would support open and internationally monitored elections to see who has the support of the Syrian people, Assad or the rebels? Instead, we ship arms and money to one side of the conflict. This not democracy and this will not end the violence.
Besides, in September 2000, Syria and four other countries (Iraq, Iran, Libya, and North Korea) were specifically targeted in the PNAC document, "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century." This explains the source of the so called "revolution" in Syria. Current aggression and regime change in Syria were planned long before the Arab Spring began.
- arsanlupinYou don't have to imagine ...00:52, 18/03/2013The people who killed civilians and attacked infrastructure in New York did in fact find out what the United States reaction would be – ask Osama bin Laden. But then the police in the USA don’t beat and torture children arrested for graffiti, nor shoot live ammunition into peaceful demonstrations. The American military won’t bomb and shell American cities because the they don’t like the president. If the American government did try any of that, then yes – the people of the United States would rise up in armed revolt. Read the 2nd amendment to the United States Constitution and the charter of the National Rifle Association if you have any doubts.
A few students spray-painted mild insults against Assad on the school wall. They were arrested, detained, and badly beaten while in custody. A small group of families of the children peacefully protested the abuse of the children, in front of the police station. They were met with automatic weapons fire, killing four and wounding dozens. Larger demonstrations protesting the carnage were met with mortars and artillery. The people’s anger spread, as did the government’s war against their own people. Today’s Syria is the result of the Assad’s reaction to some taunting from a handful of children. Assad already repeatedly refused to hold elections – let alone “open and internationally monitored elections” - before July 2014. But then his 1st election was “unopposed”, after the one-party legislature reduced the minimum age for president 6 years to Bashar’s age. His near unanimous 2nd election was universally accepted as a total sham. So much for “democracy” ... All of this was reported by RIA Novosti – an instrument of the Russian government.
Anyone who thinks the West is not democratic is either completely ignorant of the West, the United States, and of democracy, or has a mindless hatred of The West so intense it totally shorts out the speaker’s cognitive abilities. (Several such people post here.) Confusing a private policy institute like PNAC with the United States government would support either conclusion.
Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn always made clear that he admired the political liberty which was one of the enduring strengths of Western democratic societies. In a major speech at the International Academy of Philosophy in Liechtenstein on 14 September 1993, Solzhenitsyn implored the West not to "lose sight of its own values, its historically unique stability of civic life under the rule of law—a hard-won stability which grants independence and space to every private citizen." Who would dare claim to know better than he?
Name-calling, on the other hand, is of course nothing more than the nattering of an autistic infant, whose moist output from both ends is about the same.
- moistAnd by that...10:34, 12/03/2013..the American Zionist Oreo cookie drone-murderer of a president shows quite clearly that the evil empire supports and arms anyone, even bearded fanatic Al-Qaeda trolls on an insane killing spree, as long as they don't bite the hand that feeds them.
Russia BRICS and the rest of the free world must stand firm.
The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation is one of the most important foreign policy initiatives taken by Russia along with five other countries. Both Russia and China want to reduce the threat of separatism and western influence in the region. Emergence of SCO provoked new international order.