Fri. 16 Sept. 2011

WASHINGTON POST

Ø  The right call on the Syrian threat…By Elliott Abrams……..1

GUADLING

Ø  Ancient city of Mari in Syria under threat……………...…...4

ECONOMIST

Ø  Syria’s turmoil: Will foreigners get involved?...... 5

WALL st. JOURNAL

Ø  U.S., Europe See Syrian Stalemate………………………….7

GUARDIAN

Ø  Turkey blamed after defector is returned to Syria……….…11

TIME MAGAZINE

Ø  In Blow to Opposition, a Dissident Syrian Army Officer is Captured ………………………………………………...…14

TURKISH WEEKLY

Ø  Syria’s Endemic Corruption…………………………….….17

YEDIOTH AHRONOTH

Ø  Turkey’s economic lie……………………………………...20

Ø  Academics against Israel…………………………………...22

TODAY’S ZAMAN

Ø  Erdogan says Turkey warned Iran about catering to Assad..25

HOME PAGE

The right call on the Syrian threat

Elliott Abrams, Eliot Cohen, Eric Edelman and John Hannah,

Washington Post,

Friday, September 16,

Bob Woodward wrote a curious op-ed this week about the Bush administration’s response to the secret al-Kibar nuclear reactor built by Syria and North Korea. As officials who participated in the administration’s deliberations, we believe that Woodward’s account — and that of the anonymous sources who gave him background information — represents a revisionist and misleading history. Woodward’s op-ed purports to demonstrate that then-Vice President Dick Cheney, who advocated a U.S. strike to destroy the Syrian reactor, failed to learn important lessons from intelligence failures in Iraq. In fact, it is Woodward who misunderstands the reality of al-Kibar.

First, Woodward’s account of the intelligence about Syria’s nuclear program is woefully incomplete. He neglects to mention three other sites in Syria that the CIA suspected were related to al-Kibar. In the four years since Israel destroyed the reactor, Syria has refused access to these sites, despite repeated requests from the International Atomic Energy Agency. Together, these activities indicated a broad-based covert nuclear program that had been underway for nearly a decade. As for the reactor itself, it was in the middle of the desert and — according to the CIA — “was not configured to produce electricity.” For what likely purpose was it built, then, if not to produce fissile material for nuclear weapons?

As a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, Syria could have legitimately built a civilian nuclear power plant under the auspices of the IAEA. Instead, it chose to violate its international treaty obligations by secretly cooperating with North Korea to build a reactor well-suited for producing plutonium for nuclear weapons. At no point during our deliberations were U.S. intelligence analysts able to identify a reprocessing facility to turn the spent fuel into weapons-grade plutonium, and everyone was mindful of the debacle surrounding the bad intelligence in Iraq. But we also knew that in 1991, the world had dramatically underestimated how close Saddam Hussein was to a nuclear device. More often than not, history teaches that foolproof evidence becomes available only when it is too late. At al-Kibar, no intelligence analysts were able to alert policymakers that a reactor even existed until irrefutable evidence emerged in April 2007.

As Cheney relates in his memoir, he asked repeatedly over a period of years before 2007 about reports of North Korean nuclear officials traveling to Syria. U.S. intelligence analysts acknowledged the reports but had low confidence that any nuclear cooperation existed because of a lack of hard evidence. It was only when the Israelis produced photos of a nearly completed reactor in mid-2007 that low-confidence judgments switched to high-confidence judgments. Still, because we had no photos of a reprocessing facility, the analysts stuck to their low-confidence judgment about a weapons program.

Woodward’s benign view aside, advisers to President George W. Bush had few doubts about the true nature of Syria’s nuclear cooperation with North Korea and treated it as a deadly threat. Senior policymakers, including CIA Director Michael Hayden, reached consensus early on about Syria’s intentions. In meetings with the president’s top advisers, Hayden made it clear that he believed the facility was connected to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The New York Times reported in April 2008 that, despite having failed to identify a reprocessing facility, the intelligence community “had told President Bush . . . they could think of no other explanation for the reactor” than developing nuclear weapons.

The real dispute was what to do about the most brazen nuclear proliferation case in history. Despite Bush’s October 2006 threat of serious consequences if North Korea proliferated nuclear technology, Pyongyang and Damascus persisted with the reactor. Here was the world’s worst proliferator providing nuclear assistance to one of the world’s worst state sponsors of terrorism — which also happened to be facilitating attacks on American troops in Iraq. It is hard to imagine a more egregious challenge to the Bush Doctrine and America’s war against terrorism.

There were legitimate policy arguments for and against destroying the reactor, and the president’s advisers made them. Some were concerned, for example, about sparking a wider war with Syria. Some believed that the threat could be handled diplomatically. Cheney cast valid doubt on the international community’s meager record in preventing rogue states from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Some of us believed the United States should attack the reactor. Some believed Israel should act. Others were sympathetic, in principle, to a U.S.-led diplomatic initiative. Whatever our individual views, Woodward is dead wrong to present the vice president’s arguments as unreasonable. His advice was seriously considered at the time, and his claims look even more prescient in hindsight.

Ultimately, when President Bush decided against military action, the Israelis took it upon themselves to destroy the reactor. Syria then spent months trying to sanitize the site and stonewall the IAEA — confirmation of its non-peaceful intentions. The Israeli attack in September 2007 was flawless, Syria and North Korea did not lash out, and a dire proliferation threat was eliminated for good. America and the world are safer for it.

Elliott Abrams, senior fellow for Middle Eastern studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, was deputy national security adviser in 2007. Eliot Cohen, a professor of strategic studies at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies, was counselor of the State Department in 2007. Eric Edelman, the Hertog practitioner in residence at SAIS, was undersecretary of defense for policy in 2007. John Hannah, a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, was national security adviser to the vice president in 2007.

HOME PAGE

Ancient city of Mari in Syria under threat

Sean McLachlan,

Gadling (a blog from Aol Travel- American),

Sep 15th 2011

Last month we reported that the Biblical city of Nineveh is falling apart due to the ongoing war in Iraq. Now it turns out another ancient Mesopotamian city is in danger of being lost.

Mari, in Syria, was one of the great cities of Mesopotamia. It was a trading center on the Euphrates River and was founded some 7,000 years ago. Archaeologists have discovered the giant palace of a Sumerian ruler, a temple to Ishtar, and a huge library with more than 25,000 clay tablets written in Akkadian cuneiform.

Now Popular Archaeology magazine reports that erosion and neglect are returning the city to the earth. The people of Mari built with fired mud brick, using clay that was cheap and plentiful along the banks of the Euphrates. Wind and rain have been picking away at the bricks for thousands of years, and it doesn't help that more walls have been exposed by archaeologists. Dust to dust.

The Global Heritage Fund released a report on Syria's endangered heritage sites that lists Mari as the one in most need of help.

I visited Mari in the 1990s and it was one of the biggest archaeological orgasms of my life. To walk through a Mesopotamian palace, to visit one of the ancient world's biggest libraries, and to stand atop a ziggurat all in the same afternoon is something you can't do anywhere else outside of Iraq. It's one of many outstanding archaeological treasures in Syria that are in desperate need of protection and conservation. Crac de Chevaliers, one of the ten toughest castles in the world, is also in danger.

Sadly, with the Syrian government more interested in killing their own people, I don't think protecting the world's heritage is very high on their "to do" list.

HOME PAGE

Syria’s turmoil: Will foreigners get involved?

The prospect of outside help for the protesters is limited—at least for now

The Economist,

Sep 17th 2011

BEIRUT

AFTER six months of demonstrations and some 2,600 deaths, mainly of unarmed civilians, protesters have begun to call in desperate earnest for foreign help. They dubbed the most recent Friday “international protection day”. Many waved signs calling for a UN resolution and for an observer mission to visit the country. Foreign involvement is still minimal. But the prospect of it is being more hotly debated, both inside Syria and beyond.

A growing number of governments, including many in the region, have called on President Bashar Assad to make concessions. Turkey has turned against him, while keeping diplomatic avenues open. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states have sharpened their criticism. Even Iran, Mr Assad’s main regional ally, has been making more nuanced noises.

The United States and the European Union have imposed economic sanctions, banning imports of Syrian oil (a full embargo is to start on November 15th), thus denying Syria 95% of its oil-export market. They are also looking to extend sanctions against people and companies, and will try to stop banknotes printed in Europe being sent back into Syrian circulation.

Further measures are being floated in Washington and Brussels. Private banks that deal with Syria’s regime, most of them Lebanese subsidiaries, may be targeted if the killing persists. Byblos Bank, in whose Syrian subsidiary Rami Makhlouf, the president’s cousin, has a big share, may be hit. Syria’s central bank may also be a target. On September 14th the UN’s High Commissioner on Human Rights appointed a panel to investigate Syria. Some say Mr Assad and his closest allies should be referred to the International Criminal Court in The Hague.

Visiting dignitaries have sought in vain to persuade Mr Assad to give ground, if not to resign immediately. On September 10th the Arab League’s new head, Nabil al-Arabi, who was briefly Egypt’s foreign minister under the new order, proposed a timetable for open elections. But the Arabs still lack a consensus. In any event, this falls far short of foreign intervention on the side of the protesters.

Moreover, Mr Assad still has useful foreign friends. Russia, China, India and Brazil continue to oppose a UN Security Council resolution and UN-imposed sanctions. Russia supplies arms and is building a naval base on Syria’s coast. China and India may buy oil to make up for the export shortfall. It is inconceivable that the UN Security Council would now impose a no-fly zone over Syria as it did in March over Libya: Russia and China would veto it. Nor would NATO governments support such a course.

Instead, some governments are ramping up efforts to help Syria’s fragmented opposition. Turkey and Qatar have hosted gatherings to forge opposition fronts. France is building up links. Many protesters look eagerly to Turkey, which shares a border of nearly 900km (560 miles) with Syria. Some say that, especially if the pace of killing rises, the Turks may be persuaded to create a buffer zone to protect refugees in a “safe haven” along the border. Others air the idea of other havens, for defecting soldiers as well as civilian refugees, in the south and north-east of the country, along the borders with Jordan and Iraq.

Another step in the campaign against Mr Assad is an increase in funds for the opposition. More of the protesters, who have generally been determinedly non-violent, are talking of taking up arms, many of which are already being smuggled across porous borders. So the unrest could turn into a civil conflict. Governments in neighbouring countries might then have to decide which side they are on. Rich people from the Gulf, among other places, are said to be involved. Syria’s turmoil may yet take on a wider regional dimension. Ordinary Syrians are getting ever more fearful.

HOME PAGE

U.S., Europe See Syrian Stalemate

Diplomats Say Assad Could Hang On Amid U.N. Deadlock and Sanctions' Limited Bite; Americans Told to Leave Country.

JAY SOLOMON in Washington and NOUR MALAS in Beirut

Wall Street Journal,

15 Sept. 2011,

The Obama administration and its European allies are planning for a protracted confrontation with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, amid signs his regime is weathering the rebellion that is turning six months old this week, according to senior U.S. and European officials.

Many American and European diplomats have privately questioned whether Mr. Assad could survive the year, as protests spread from Syria's rural south to major cities such as Hama and Homs. The U.S. and European Union have placed a coordinated oil embargo on Damascus, threatening as much as one-third of the government's revenue.

But U.S. and European officials believe the upper ranks of Mr. Assad's military, dominated by members of his Alawite religious sect, remain largely unified in supporting the president. Opposition, meanwhile, continues to be divided along religious, ethnic and geographic lines. And Damascus is working to reorient its trade away from Europe to blunt the impact of sanctions.

"I thought we could be moving toward a tipping point in Syria during Ramadan," the Muslim holy month that ended in August, said a senior European official working on Syria. "But I don't think we're there yet. Bashar could still hold on for a long time."

Syria's efforts to avoid international isolation are being aided by a divided United Nations Security Council—with countries including Russia, South Africa, China, India and Brazil blocking efforts to enact U.N. sanctions on Syria.

U.S. and European officials said this week that they will continue to press for a new U.N. resolution censuring Syria but that opposition from this bloc remains strong. "We have a very interesting composition of the Security Council right now," U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice said Monday, referring to aspiring permanent members India, South Africa and Brazil. "We've learned a lot…and a lot of it hasn't been encouraging."