Showing posts with label John Kerry. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John Kerry. Show all posts

Thursday, December 12, 2013

Ukraine target of EU/NATO subversion

EU/NATO TARGETS
UKRAINE FOR
"REGIME CHANGE"

The current wave of protests in Ukraine are the outward expression of the most brazen attempt at interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign European country by the EU/NATO bloc since the conspiracy to destroy Federal Yugoslavia in the 1990’s where armed rebellion against the Belgrade Government was organised and financed by EU/NATO with the US, West Germany and Austria openly supplying arms to Croatian separatists provoking the most disastrous civil conflict in Europe since WW2.
The Western whore press has gone to great lengths to portray the demonstrations in Kiev as a struggle for democracy and the rule of law. In fact, they are part of a geopolitical strategy of the EU/NATO imperialist expansion in Eastern Europe in an attempt to reduce Russian influence and subordinate the Ukrainian State to the domination of Germany, the European Union and NATO.
Nine years ago, the so-called “Orange Revolution” was organised with massive political and financial support from the US government and American NGOs such as the “Open Society Institute” of billionaire George Soros. Other usual suspects include the National Endowment of Democracy (NED), the International Republican Institute (IRI), the National Democratic Institute (NDI), Freedom House,   and other corporate groups such as the Rockefeller Foundation. They serve US imperial and corporate interests. They exploit ordinary people doing so. Various activities are ongoing in different countries. These forces were able to annul the 2004 Ukrainian presidential election and ensure that the pro-EU and pro-US tandem of Viktor Yushchenko and Julia Tymoshenko took over as head of state and head of government in place of Viktor Yanukovich, who was considered to be in the pocket of Russia. The muppet duo quickly fell out, however, and Yanukovich was able to assume the post of president in the 2010 election.

Queen Julia, convicted in October, 2011 of embezzlement and abuse of power by a Ukrainian Court  and sentenced to seven years imprisonment, willingly prostitutes herself as EU/NATO propaganda muppet, the victim of persecution by allegedly unfair legal proceedings. Tymoshenko is currently being held in the Kharkiv-based Central Clinical Hospital No. 5 under police surveillance, where since May 2012 she has been receiving treatment after being diagnosed with a spinal disc herniation. The EU has repeatedly called for release of Julia Tymoshenko as a main condition for signing the EU Association Agreement thus compounding its blatant political interference in Ukraine’s internal affairs, something which they would absolutely reject if applied to themselves. EU Foreign Affairs representative, Baroness Catherine Ashton, a Washington and NATO stooge who owes her title to war-monger Tony Blair for supporting the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003 and probably the most stupid individual ever to hold a senior position in the Brussels bureaucracy, daily calls for Tymoshenko’s release. Former Irish MEP and onetime president of the European Parliament, Pat Cox, former deputy leader of Irish neo-liberal right-wing caucus, the so-called “Progressive Democrats”, also interests himself in the campaign for Tymoshenko’s release. Derogatorily referred to as “Cat Pox” in Irish blogs, the despised ratbag enriched himself as an MEP and “advisor” for US and European corporate monopolies and was cheerleader for the privatisation and anti-worker policies of the previous Irish Government which landed our country in its worst ever economic crisis.

Now another, more serious attempt, is being made to bring a regime to power in Kiev that will subordinate the former Soviet Republic and granary of the Russian Empire to the EU.  The tactics have all the hallmarks of what was engineered against Socialist Yugoslavia in the 1990’s; the existing elected government is declared “undemocratic” and “dictatorial”; internal tensions and political and religious divisions are ruthlessly exploited with massively financed propaganda campaigns with traitorous opportunists who value euros and dollars above their own countries’ interests.  
An examination of the political leadership of the current protests reveals their totally reactionary character. They are led by three parties, two of which have close relations with the conservative camps in the EU, while the third is openly fascist. The Batkivshchyna (Homeland) party, led by the imprisoned Julia Tymoshenko, has observer status with the European People’s Party, the association of Europe’s Christian-Democratic and conservative parties. UDAR (Punch), headed by boxing champion Vitali Klitschko, who lives in  Germany, is a creation of German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and its think tank, the Konrad Adenauer Foundation. The latter publicly advertises on its web site seminars devoted to the political education of UDAR members.
According to a study entitled “The Extreme Right in the Ukraine” by the German Friedrich Ebert Foundation, the third party, Svoboda (Freedom), is “the flagship of core extreme-right ideology.” The party’s original name was the Social-National Party of Ukraine. It used as its emblem a logo reminiscent of the Nazi swastika. On the advice of the extreme right-wing (Le Pen) French National Front (FN), with which it works closely, it adopted a less provocative name.
Arseniy Yatsenyuk (Homeland) and Vitali Klitschko regularly appear at press conferences together with Oleh Tyahnybok from Svoboda. Tyahnybok is a neo-Nazi notorious for his ultranationalist, xenophobic and anti-Semitic outbursts.
 A WARNING TO OUR UKRAINIAN FRIENDS!
Leading European and American politicians have expressed their solidarity with the protests in Ukraine. The EU is no earthly paradise. The same forces that have tacitly supported the brutality of their own police and para-military forces in mercilessly beating and oppressing those opposing EU austerity policies in Athens, Madrid, Lisbon and elsewhere, now proclaim their “outrage” at the brutality of the Ukrainian police. The appalling “austerity” policies imposed on Greece by the IMF and Brussels Dictatorship, the unelected EU Commission, which amount to nothing less than the forced impoverishment of the majority of the Greek population and are a living example of what is in store for Ukrainians if they foolishly allow themselves to be duped by the EU/NATO gang of hypocrites and liars. Likewise, the scandalous robbery of the savings of the people of Cyprus to satisfy the extortionate demands of the EU Banking cartel, which is now the official policy of the Brussels Dictatorship, is another example of what is in store for Ukrainians if these parasites get their way and abolish Ukraine’s sovereignty under the guise of a “trade agreement” with the EU/NATO bloc.

EU so-called “democracy” is a total sham. In 2009, when the Irish people rejected by a 60% majority the reactionary “Lisbon Treaty” which has imposed the failed economic dogma of neo-liberalism on EU countries, the people were forced to vote again in order to give the “right answer” the second time. In the second referendum on the Treaty, in 2010, the US Corporate monopolies based in Ireland spent €40 Million providing funds for “Yes” vote propaganda while the “NO” opposition had only a budget of €4,000. In a criminal manoeuvre, the second referendum was allocated the same number as the first, “28th amendment to the Constitution” allowing saved “yes” ballot papers from the first vote to be “recycled” (contrary to electoral law which states they must be destroyed within six months of the vote) and stuffed in the ballot boxes of the second vote thus providing the required “correct “ answer. In addition, empty ballot boxes were illegally delivered to private houses of election officials two days before the second referendum, again contrary to Irish electoral law, which provides that ballot boxes must be held in police stations or military barracks, under guard, until the morning of the vote. Further, and also contrary to Irish electoral law, agents of the “No” Campaign were refused permission to inspect and survey the ballot boxes being held overnight in count centres around the country.
In a disgraceful incident, from the first referendum in 2009, seen here:
 An unknown individual is filmed entering the Count Centre at Cork City Hall and re-emerging with a ballot box which he walks away with into the night. The Irish Government and police have consistently refused to investigate this incident despite numerous requests from concerned citizens.

US State Secretary, public liar John Kerry, urges the Ukrainian government to “listen to the voice of their people,” while in the US itself the “voice of the people”, the popular Occupy Movement, which organised street protests against the corporate robbery of the American people by the bandits of Wall Street, was violently suppressed by brutal State Police action throughout the country. The German Foreign Minister, Guido Westerwelle, intervened personally to mix with demonstrators in Kiev. NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen has demanded that the Ukrainian government guarantee the right to freedom of expression and assembly. The German government, which has just commenced new proceedings against the neo-fascist National Democratic Party of Germany, defends the right of the Ukrainian fascists to demonstrate. Yesterday, US Deputy Secretary of State, Nuland, turned up in the streets of Kiev handing out bread to protesters.
Though it is calling for the resignation of the President and new elections, the opposition does not enjoy the support of the majority of Ukrainians. A motion of censure against the Government failed last week  in parliament. The Association and Free Trade Agreement with the European Union that the opposition wants to implement would have a devastating impact on large sections of the Ukrainian population.
The EU Agreement excludes simultaneous membership in a Russian-led customs union and would thus cut off Ukraine from its main trading partner, with which Ukraine’s industry and transport routes are closely connected. The abolition of customs duties on European goods would also mean bankruptcy for many Ukrainian industries.
The terms of the agreement, which include the introduction of EU rules for labour market deregulation, reducing workers’ rights and limiting the right to strike, the privatisation of state enterprises and a reduction in the public debt, would have a social impact similar to the EU austerity programs imposed on Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Romania and other countries. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) is already denying Ukraine a much-needed credit because the government refuses to hike the price of gas by 40 percent—a move that would inevitably result in the death of many unemployed people and pensioners unable to pay their heating bills as happens in the USA and EU countries every winter. The social and economic gains made by working people in the aftermath of WW2 are being systematically dismantled throughout the EU by the US invented “neo-liberalism” economic dogma of selling off state and public assets to private monopolies and abolishing social welfare, public health services and education services and replacing these with high-priced profit making rackets. The privatisation of public water supply further leaves the general population totally dependent on the whims of greedy profit-mongers and EU/US corporate vultures.
The Association Agreement would turn the country into an extended sweatshop workplace for German and European companies, which could produce at deliberately lowered wage rates than those in China. At the same time, the country’s natural resources, its vast and fertile landmass, agriculture and its domestic market of 46 million inhabitants make Ukraine a mouthwatering prospect for German and European corporate exploiters. The EU especially covets Ukrainian agricultural production as part of its policy of “food security” in reducing imports from developing countries in favour of production on the continent of Europe.
The agreement would also strengthen the EU’s hand against Russia. A customs union or Eurasian Union comprising Russia and the Ukraine would have had a significantly stronger position in trade negotiations with the EU than an isolated Russia. Separation of Ukraine from Russian trade links would leave that country in a much weakened position of reduced sovereignty, as has been imposed on the smaller EU countries by Britain, France and Germany who themselves blatantly ignore the rules they impose on others through the Brussels Dictatorship.
Germany, the EU and the US are pursuing not only economic, but also geopolitical, objectives in Ukraine. Given Russia’s loss of influence in Eastern Europe since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the incorporation of Ukraine into the EU would push Russia off to the edge of Europe and with the extreme pressure now being exerted on the remaining neutral countries in Europe, Ireland, Finland, Sweden, Austria, Macedonia and Montenegro to join the aggressive NATO military alliance, responsible for all current major conflicts in the world, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen and Somalia, supporting Israel’s oppression of Palestine, they want to consolidate their position on the frontiers of Russia at the expense of the peoples of those countries.
Kiev Rus, the first organised Slavic state in Europe, was a creation of the Ukrainian people. Since the end of the 18th Century, Ukraine formed an important part of the Russian and Soviet state. Moreover, the Russian Black Sea Naval Fleet is located in Crimea at a port leased to Russia by Ukraine. Both the US and the EU have an interest in weakening Russia, which is considered to be an important ally of China. Immediately after his election in March, Chinese President Xi Jinping travelled to Moscow to strengthen the two countries’ “strategic partnership.” Both countries feel threatened economically and strategically by the aggressive incursions of the US and its allies in Asia, the Middle East and Africa.
China is also expanding its economic links with Ukraine, which currently conducts about 5 percent of its foreign trade with China. In October, the South China Morning Post reported that the Chinese state-owned enterprise XPCC had struck a deal with the Ukrainian agricultural company KSG Agro to gain access to 100,000 hectares of arable land for the production of food for China. This area is to be expanded to three million hectares—the size of Belgium or Massachusetts.
China has already given the country loans of $10 billion. Ukraine considers its economic relations with China to be so important that President Yanukovich set off for a four-day state visit to Beijing, despite the continuing political crisis. This is the background to the attempts by the EU and the German government to use the protests in Kiev to destabilise the Ukrainian government. Their initiative has been launched in tandem with the US, which is systematically expanding its military presence in Asia to encircle China and undermine its influence in the region. To this end, the US has massively intensified its pressure on China in recent weeks.
The offensive against Ukraine raises profound historical questions. In two world wars, Germany sought to bring Ukraine under its control and committed abominable crimes in the process. The current brazenness of the German government is fraught with new dangers. The growing international tensions can quickly turn into armed conflict similar to what was imposed on Socialist Yugoslavia and being imposed on Syria today. The EU/NATO bloc cares nothing about the destruction imposed on countries where they seek “regime change” as their long-term strategy includes profiting from the required “reconstruction” business in the aftermath of each conflict and acquiring the resources of the target country for globalised monopoly capitalism.
This danger can only be countered by a strong independent movement of international working class solidarity fighting for a united, democratic socialist Europe against the inhuman neo liberalism economic dogma of the Wall Street and Frankfurt Banking monopolies.






Saturday, September 28, 2013

No need for Security Council resolution on Syria!


SYRIA CHEM-WEAPONS:
NO NEED FOR ANY
SECURITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION:

The disposal of Syria's stockpile of chemical weapons does not need any Security Council resolution as the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW)  the implementation body for the Convention can carry out the necessary actions under its own mandate, reasons Dr David Morrison, Queens University Belfast, Northern Ireland, in a commentary on the current situation:
 
 


"Syria is about to become the 190th state party to the Chemical Weapons Convention(CWC) [1]. The Convention, which came into force on 29 April 1997, bans the acquisition and use of chemical weapons and requires state parties to destroy existing stocks and production facilities upon joining (Article I).


The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) is the implementation body for the Convention. As its website says: “The OPCW is given the mandate to achieve the object and purpose of the Convention, to ensure the implementation of its provisions – including those for international verification of compliance with it.” [2]


The OPCW is the appropriate international body to supervise the elimination of Syria’s chemical weapons. No Security Council resolution, Chapter VII or otherwise, is necessary. In extremis, the OPCW can refer incidents of non-compliance to the UN – Article VIII (36) of the Convention says that the OPCW may “in cases of particular gravity and urgency” bring the issue “directly to the attention of the United Nations General Assembly and the United Nations Security Council”.


The Convention is clear: it is up to the OPCW to determine if Security Council intervention is necessary to deal with non-compliance issues during the process of eliminating Syria’s chemical weapons.

How to become a party to the Convention
For a state to become a party after 29 April 1997, when the Convention itself came into force, a state must deposit an “instrument of accession” with the UN Secretary General (Articles XX and XXIII). However, 30 days have to elapse before the process is complete and the Convention “enters into force” for that state (Article XXI(2)). Syria deposited an “instrument of accession” with the UN Secretary General on 14 September 2013 [3] and therefore cannot become a party to the Convention until 14 October. However, Syria has asked the OPCW for “provisional application of the Convention to Syria prior to its formal entry into force” and for “technical assistance” with regard to disarmament [4].




On becoming a party to the Convention, a state also becomes a member of the OPCW(Article VIII(2)). A state party is required to submit a declaration about its chemical weapons to the OPCW within 30 days of the Convention coming into force for that party (Article III), which means by 13 November in the case of Syria. The declaration must provide a detailed inventory of the chemical weapons the state possesses and their locations and the locations of any chemical weapons production facilities.

The “framework” document agreed by John Kerry and Sergei Lavrov in Geneva on 14 September (see below) demanded that Syria submit a declaration within 7 days, that is, more than 50 days earlier than required by the Convention. At the time of writing, Syria appears to have done just that. As of 21 September, the OPCW website [5] confirmed that it has received the Syrian declaration.

Immediately after submitting the declaration, OPCW inspectors must be granted access to the weapons and weapons production sites “for the purpose of systematic verification of the declaration through on-site inspection” (Article IV(4)).

On destroying chemical weapons

The Convention requires state parties to destroy their own weapons upon joining. Most likely given the ongoing warfare in Syria, as far as practicable, its weapons will be taken outside the country for destruction. States that joined prior to the Convention coming into force were allowed 10 years to complete the destruction of their weapons, though a 5 year extension could be applied for (Article IV(6)). Both the US and Russia were given a 5-year extension until 29 April 2012.

However, states joining after 2007 must destroy their weapons “as soon as possible” according to procedures laid down by the OPCW Executive Council (Article IV (8)). The destruction of Syrian weapons will take place under this provision.

No Security Council resolution required:

The OPCW is mandated by the Convention to oversee the elimination of Syria’s chemical weapons and has the technical capability of doing so. It will interact with the Syrian government to that end. There is no need whatsoever for a Security Council resolution, with or without sanctions under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, to get the job done. Indeed, there is no need for Security Council involvement at all, unless the OPCW decides to refer Syrian non-compliance of some description to the Security Council under Article VIII (36) of the Convention.

Non-compliance by Syria is very unlikely. It is in Russia’s interest that Syria cooperate fully, and be seen to co-operate fully, with the OPCW, so that Syria’s chemical weapons are eliminated as quickly as possible. Russia achieved a major diplomatic coup and sidelined the US (and Britain and France) by proposing that Syria get rid of its chemical weapons. It would be less than pleased if Syria obstructed the process of putting its proposal into practice and took the shine of this achievement. Syria is very unlikely to do that since it would damage its relations with Russia, its main political backer.
 

The Kerry/Lavrov “plan”
But didn’t the US and Russia produce a plan for ridding Syria of its chemical weapons at the meeting between John Kerry and Sergei Lavrov in Geneva from 12-14 September 2013? And isn’t the Security Council going to pass a resolution endorsing this plan and supervising its implementation, a resolution including sanctions under Chapter VII of the UN Charter to punish Syria if it fails to co-operate fully?
Well, that’s what the US (and Britain and France) want the world to think – because they want to get back in the game having been sidelined by Russia’s proposal. They want to give the impression that, through their permanent membership of the Security Council, they are going to be intimately involved in the implementation of Russia’s proposal.
Russia has gone along with this and co-operated with the production of a plan at the Geneva meeting, called Framework for Elimination of Syrian Chemical Weapons [6]. This includes a timetable laying down that Syria had to submit a declaration about its chemical weapons within a week (obviously agreed with Syria in advance) and to give inspectors immediate access to weapons sites. It also laid down that inspectors must have completed their verification of the accuracy of Syria’s declaration by November and all chemical weapons material and equipment must be eliminated in the first half of 2014.
This timetable was worked out at the Kerry/Lavrov meeting, despite the fact that the participants could not have been aware of the full facts about Syria’s chemical weapons, which will only be known in detail after the OPCW has verified Syria’s declarations by onsite inspections. Nor could the participants know the resources required/available to destroy the weapons in Syria or to remove them for destruction elsewhere, which is essential to laying down a realistic timetable.
Nevertheless. the meeting produced a plan and, as announced to the world by Kerry at the post-meeting press conference [7], it seemed as if the OPCW was being by-passed and the Security Council would supervise the implementation of the plan and apply a big stick to Syria if, as he expected, it failed to co-operate fully.
 

Merely a proposal to the OPCW:
However, if you listened carefully to Sergei Lavrov at the press conference, you got  a different picture. In reality, the Framework document is an input document for the OPCW’s Executive Council’s consideration about how to proceed. According to a translation on the US State Department website, Lavrov said: “And these documents … these are Russian and American proposals, and they should be considered first and first of all in the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. After this organization and its executive council adopt corresponding decisions, we will tell you exactly when the first inspection will start, and when these inspections will end.” [7]
The Framework Document itself says: “… the United States and the Russian Federation have committed to prepare and submit in the next few days to the Executive Council of the OPCW a draft decision setting down special procedures for expeditious destruction of the Syrian chemical weapons program and stringent verification thereof.”
The OPCW Executive Council has 41 members elected on a regional basis by the state parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention [8]. Both the US and Russia are members of the Council and are entitled to make proposals, but any decision by the Council is bound to take into account the advice of the OPCW’s own technical personnel, who are going to be intimately involved in the process of eliminating Syria’s chemical weapons. It seems unlikely that at this stage a decision will include much detail about how the process will be carried out or anything more than an aspiration about when it will be completed.



What about a Security Council resolution?
On a Security Council resolution, the Framework document states: “The United States and the Russian Federation commit to work together towards prompt adoption of a UN Security Council resolution that reinforces the decision of the OPCW Executive Council.”
According to this, the resolution will merely express support for the OPCW decision (whenever it emerges) and therefore doesn’t require the inclusion of enforcement measures under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. However, the Framework document does allow for the possibility of a Chapter VII Security Council resolution in the event of non-compliance reported to the Security Council by the OPCW under Article VIII of the Convention:
“…in the event of non-compliance, including unauthorised transfer, or any use of chemical weapons by anyone in Syria, the UN Security Council should impose measures under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. The proposed joint US-Russian OPCW draft decision supports the application of Article VIII of the Chemical Weapons Convention, which provides for the referral of any cases of noncompliance to the United Nations General Assembly and the United Nations Security Council.”
Here’s what Sergei Lavrov had to say about this at the press conference:
“And we also agreed that any violations of procedures that would be approved by the Executive Committee of the OPCW concerning the arsenal of chemical weapons, as well as any facts of applying these chemical weapons, would be looked at in the Security Council. And if they are approved, the Security Council will take the measures – required measures, concrete measures – and we have agreed on that. …
“Of course, it does not mean that every violation that will be reported to the Security Council will be taken by word [sic]. Of course, we will investigate every case, because there are [sic] a lot of false information, pieces of information in the world, and we should be very cautious about every fact. And when we are sure, 100 percent, then we in the Russian Federation will be ready to adopt a new resolution of the Security Council to embed the measures to punish the perpetrators of this violation, and it’s nonsense to continue the speculations on the matter today.”
Is disarmament a practical proposition?
Is the elimination of Syria’s chemical weapons a practical proposition, given the ongoing warfare there? According to John Kerry, the answer is YES – because the Assad regime has done a fine job of keeping control of them. Here’s what he said at the press conference in Geneva:
“One of the reasons that we believe this is achievable is because the Assad regime has taken extraordinary pains in order to keep control of these weapons. And they have moved them, and we know they’ve moved them. We’ve seen them move them. We watched this. And so we know they’ve continued to always move them to a place of more control. “Therefore, since these weapons are in areas under regime control predominantly, Sergei raises questions that maybe the opposition has some here or there, and absolutely, fair is fair. Both sides have to be responsible.”
 
Isn’t it fortunate that the US has failed to topple the Assad regime, otherwise Syria’s chemical weapons might have fallen into the hands of God knows who – and rendered their elimination impossible?
 
David Morrison

22 September 2013




 


 

 











 

 

 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 



Tuesday, September 10, 2013

RUSSIAN PEACE PROPOSAL FOR SYRIA

                Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov(L) with Syrian Deputy Premier and Foreign Minister
                Walid al-Muallem in Moscow, Monday.

RUSSIAN INITIATIVE ON
CHEMICAL WEAPONS
GETS WELCOME IN SYRIA:

An apparent slip of the tongue by US Secretary of State, John Kerry, seeming to give an ultimatum to Damascus to de-commission its chemical weapons stocks within one week was gazumped by Moscow with a request to Syria to put its Chem weapons under UN control and quickly welcomed by Syrian Deputy Premier, Walid al-Muallem, in Moscow for talks with Russian leaders.


Syria welcomed the Russian proposal to place the nation's chemical weapons under international control, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem said on Monday after talks in Moscow, praising the Kremlin for seeking to "prevent American aggression".

Muallem, who spoke to reporters through an interpreter after Russia expressed hope the proposal could avert military strikes against Syria, stopped short of saying explicitly that President Bashar al-Assad's government accepted it.

"I state that the Syrian Arab Republic welcomes the Russian initiative, motivated by the Syrian leadership's concern for the lives of our citizens and the security of our country and also motivated by our confidence in the wisdom of the Russian leadership, which is attempting to prevent American aggression against our people," he said.
“We are calling on the Syrian authorities not only to agree on putting chemical weapons storages under international control, but also for its further destruction and then joining of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons,” Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said earlier.


Moscow proposes Syria’s chemical disarmament in exchange for peace:
After talks with Syrian Foreign Minister, Walid al-Muallem, in Moscow, Lavrov called on Syria to "place the chemical weapons under international control and then have them destroyed".  “We have passed our offer to Al-Muallem and hope to receive a fast and positive answer,” Sergei Lavrov said.

If establishment of control over chemical weapons in Syria can help avoid a strike, Russia will immediately join it,  Lavrov said at  the press-conference. Moscow will try to broker a deal in which Syria submits its chemical arsenal to international control and the West drops plans to attack Syria, Lavrov added. Lavrov also said Moscow is already stoking up diplomacy to this end.
 
The Russian initiative cuts across the real agenda of Washington which is to act for regime change in Damascus and eliminate a Government which has steadfastly resisted US imperialist actions in the Middle East:
"Obama is not listening to Americans, Europeans or the UK Parliament. We thank the American people for standing against striking Syria. We admire the American people who voice their protest against military intervention," said Walid al-Muallem during the meeting  in Moscow.
"What are the real interests of the United States behind launching this aggression? Why does US want to help those who are behind 9/11? The US will be wrong to destroy army and help al-Qaeda," Walid al-Muallem said, adding that "We’re confident Russian efforts on peace talks will stop strikes".

Aggression against Syria aims at weakening the military potential of the Syrian army in the interest of al-Qaeda "But if such aggression against Syria aims, as we suspect, to considerably weaken the military potential of the Syrian army in the interest of al-Qaeda and various affiliated groups, then we will raise our objections," he said. "Then we have the right to ask a question about the genuine interests of the United States that wishes to unleash an attack on the behalf of Jabhat al-Nusra and similar groups," the Syrian minister stressed.

US Senate delays vote on Syria:

The US Senate was set to vote on Wednesday whether to authorise President Obama to use "limited military action" against Syria. But, following a day of debates, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced he would not file for a test vote on a resolution to strike Syria.
"I'm not going to file closure this evening on the motion to proceed to the Syria resolution," he said on the Senate floor.   

"Tomorrow the president is going to brief the Democratic caucus and the Republican caucus separately." "He's going to address the nation tomorrow night. As we all know, the international discussions continue relative to the matter in Syria. Normally, what I would do in a situation like this is file cloture today. But I don't think that's to our benefit. I don't think we need to see how fast we can do this. We have to see how well we can do this matter," Reid continued. 

Meanwhile across the US, Peace activists continued to mount protest demonstrations against the Obama/Kerry insane war plans. On Saturday, demonstrations were held in all major cities in the country adding to the telephone and social media pressure on Senators  and Congress members not to vote for War in the coming debates. In one district in the State of Maryland the voters were 97% against any military intervention in Syria.

                                              Anti-War protesters at the White house on Saturday

The bumbling incompetence of Obama/Kerry's conduct of US foreign policy has shocked NATO allies and is partly the reason why German Chancellor, Angela Merkel refused to sign the communique supporting the US line at the end of the G20 Summit in Petersburg, Russia, last week and French President, Francois Hollande pulled back from supporting a US military strike on Syria as well.

"Mutti Merkel" as she is colloquially described, wears the trousers, literally, as well as politically as she governs from her little palace, the Bundeskanzler Amt, a few hundred yards West of the Brandenburg Gate in central Berlin.


With the United States seeking to rally international support for military strikes on Syria in the wake of what it says was a deadly chemical attack by the regime on August 21,only four EU countries signed the statement.
 


On Sunday, Mrs Merkel criticised the timing of the statement and said she wanted to get all 28 EU members on board before signing.

"I don't believe it's right for five countries to agree on a united stance without the other 23 that can't be there, knowing that 24 hours later all 28 will be gathering around the same table." Merkel, who is seeking re-election in two weeks' time, told a campaign rally in western Germany. "That's why I said, 'Let's see to it that we have a united stance by all 28.'"

The remarks were a veiled criticism of Britain, France, Italy and Spain, the four EU countries that signed the G20 statement on Friday.

Neither the G20 statement nor the EU statement - issued after a meeting attended by US Secretary of State John Kerry - called for military intervention.






See also: "Berlin protests Obama Spynet" here: