Damascene Conversions: The Engagement of Syria

Joshua Landis has a complementary (and complimentary) perspective on Tisdall's analysis on Syria Comment.

Simon Tisdall, writing in The Guardian of London on Monday, offered a valuable analysis of the recent dynamics surrounding US-Syrian relations and events in the Middle East. Tisdall noted (rightly, in my opinion) the "realist" outlook of Obama and Co. and suggested that "improved US relations with Syria could hold the key" three vital issues: avoidance of military confrontation with Iran, management of the Iraq withdrawal, "and some kind of half-credible peace process between Israel and its Arab neighbours". He supported this reading with the signals of engagement: Syrian President Bashir al-Assad's interviews welcoming a US "re-entry" into the Middle East peace process, Senator John Kerry's visit to Damascus last week, and conciliatory words from Arab states such as Saudi Arabia.

What can and should be added to Tisdall's analysis are the recent events that have not only promoted this engagement but strengthened Syria's position in negotiations. In December 2008, the foundations for direct Israel-Syria talks had been laid but the wider context for the diplomacy was still the call for Damascus to end its support of groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas and to limit, if not cut, its ties with Iran.

Then the Olmert Government decided to gamble with the invasion of Gaza. The direct talks with Syria were suspended of course, alienating Turkey in the process, as Tel Aviv effectively hand-in-hand with Egypt and probably Saudi Arabia on the challenge to Hamas.

The significance was not only that this challenge failed but that it spurred a re-alignment which put Syria in the Middle Eastern ascendancy. By giving vocal and visible support to Hamas, Assad set himself up as the defender of Arab resistance to Israeli aggression, a position buttressed by the damage to Egypt's reputation. With Turkey and Iran recognising that position, as they quickly sent representatives to Damascus, and with platforms such as the Qatar Summit, the Syrians could look to a reconfigured diplomatic scene in the aftermath of Gaza.

Few have noted, for example, that there is no more talk of bringing Syrian leaders to account for the assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq al-Hariri in 2005. It is also notable that no one, especially the US, is making a fuss about the alleged Syrian nuclear facility destroyed by Israel in October 2007, even though an International Atomic Energy Agency report last week pointed to the presence of uranium.

Instead, renewed Israeli-Syrian talks are being pursued so vigorously that Uzi Mahnaimi, who should be considered more a conduit for the Israeli military and intelligence services than a journalist for The Sunday Times, is writing: "Reports compiled by Mossad, the overseas spy agency, and by military intelligence, that strongly advocate opening negotiations with President Bashar al-Assad of Syria."

Which brings us back to the wider of the Damascene conversion of Gaza into a re-aligned position not only on its direct relations with Tel Aviv but on relations with Hamas, Hezbollah, and Tehran. Tisdall sees a trade-off: a new Israeli Government will have to engage in meaningful talks with Syria to maintain its isolation of Hamas: "If, as seems likely, [Benjamin Netanyahu] obstructs the Palestinian track, the Likud leader may have to give ground elsewhere, literally."

That might have been possible up to December, but no longer. Syria now has the cards for its territorial aims vis-a-vis Israel but for an inclusion of Hamas in the discussions on Palestine. The attempt to curb Hezbollah through talks with Damascus, which always was a curious exercise mssing the complexities of Lebanese politics and society, will now be kicked into touch. And the breaking of a supposed Syria-Iran axis is now less likelu than a dynamic in which engagement with both Damascus and Tehran takes place.

In 2003, chatter in Washington was "Baghdad, Then Turn Left". That thought of rolliing regime change can now be consigned to the dustbin of George W. Bush's history. It's envoys, not tanks, that are the talismen of this New Middle East Order.

The Guardian: British Officials Devised Torture Policy for Detainees

Bravo to Ian Cobain and Richard Norton-Taylor. Amidst the UK-US collusion to prevent documents on torture being seen by the British High Court and the attempt to prevent the story of the abuse of Guantanamo Bay detainee Binyam Mohamed (pictured) from emerging, they are explaining how Government officials established torture as a policy. This is the article that will appear in tomorrow's Guardian:

Whitehall devised torture policy for terror detainees

A policy governing the interrogation of terrorism suspects in Pakistan that led to British citizens and residents being tortured was devised by MI5 lawyers and figures in government, according to evidence heard in court.

A number of British terrorism suspects who have been detained without trial in Pakistan say they were tortured by Pakistani intelligence agents before being questioned by MI5. In some cases their accusations are supported by medical evidence.

The existence of an official interrogation policy emerged during cross-examination in the high court in London of an MI5 officer who had questioned one of the detainees, Binyam Mohamed, the British resident currently held in Guantánamo Bay. The officer, who can be identified only as Witness B, admitted that although Mohamed had been in Pakistani custody for five weeks, and he knew the country to have a poor human rights record, he did not ask whether he had been tortured or mistreated, did not inquire why he had lost weight, and did not consider whether his detention without trial was illegal.

Mohamed is expected to return to Britain soon after ending a five-week hunger strike at Guantánamo Bay, where he was being force-fed. After he was seen by British officials and a doctor over the weekend, the Foreign Office said he was medically fit to travel.

Cross-examined in the high court last year, Witness B acknowledged that Mohamed was in "an extremely vulnerable position" when he questioned him in Karachi in 2002. The MI5 officer admitted telling him that "he would get more lenient treatment if he cooperated", and said that he knew he was to be transferred to US custody.

Witness B was asked by Dinah Rose QC, for Mohamed: "Was it your understanding that it was lawful for Mr Mohamed to be transferred to the US authorities in this way?" Witness B replied: "I consider that to be a matter for the security service top management and for government."

Asked then whether the transfer concerned him, Witness B replied: "I was aware that the general question of interviewing detainees had been discussed at length by security service management legal advisers and government, and I acted in this case, as in others, under the strong impression that it was considered to be proper and lawful." He denied that he had threatened Mohamed and said the prisoner appeared well enough to be questioned.

Mohamed was eventually able to tell lawyers that before being questioned by MI5 he had been hung from leather straps, beaten and threatened with a firearm by Pakistani intelligence officers. After the meeting with MI5 he was "rendered" to Morocco where he endured 18 months of even more brutal torture, including having his genitals slashed with a scalpel. Some of the questions put to him under torture in Morocco were based on information passed by MI5 to the US.

The Guardian has learned from other sources that the interrogation policy was directed at a high level within Whitehall and that it has been further developed since Mohamed's detention in Pakistan. Evidence of this might emerge from 42 undisclosed US documents seen by the high court and sent to the MPs and peers on the intelligence and security committee (ISC).

Lawyers representing Mohamed went to the high court in an attempt to secure the disclosure of the documents, but the court reluctantly refused earlier this month after David Miliband, the foreign secretary, said such a move would damage national security and UK-US relations.

Miliband's position in the affair came under renewed attack yesterday after it emerged that his officials solicited a letter from the US state department to back up his claim that if the evidence was disclosed, Washington might stop sharing intelligence with Britain. The claim persuaded the high court judges to suppress what they called "powerful evidence" relating to Mohamed's ill-treatment.

Edward Davey, the Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, today described the move as possibly "one of the most outrageous deceptions of parliament, the judiciary and the British people. There must be an immediate investigation, with all related correspondence made public."

The FCO said it asked the US to make its position clear in writing "to inform both us and the court". It said it was "both perfectly sensible and the correct thing to do".

The high court said it was now up to the ISC to "hold those in charge of the secret intelligence service and security service and her majesty's government to account".

In a letter to the committee, Clive Stafford Smith, the director of Reprieve, says: "The ISC would want to know whether the intelligence services brought the issue of Mr Mohamed's abuse to the attention of the prime minister (then Mr Blair) – and, if not, why not." He said if the evidence had been brought to Blair's attention, "the ISC would want to know what, if anything, was done about it. If nothing was done, that would raise serious questions about the respect that the UK government has for its obligations under the convention against torture."

Evidence heard by the court in-camera – once the public and the media had been excluded – resulted in Jacqui Smith, the home secretary, asking the attorney general, Lady Scotland, to investigate "possible criminal wrongdoing" by both American and British security and intelligence officers.

Witness B's testimony is expected to be considered by MPs and peers on parliament's joint committee on human rights, which has begun an inquiry into allegations of British collusion in the torture of detainees in Pakistan, and is asking Miliband and Smith to give evidence.

A number of British terrorism suspects have been questioned by British intelligence officials, including MI5 officers, after periods of alleged torture by Pakistani interrogators. Last year Manchester crown court heard that MI5 and Greater Manchester police passed questions to Pakistani interrogators so they could be put to Rangzieb Ahmed, 35, from Rochdale. MI5 officers also interviewed him while he was in custody, although the head of the consular division at the British high commission was not informed about his detention for nine months. By the time Ahmed was deported to the UK 13 months later, and successfully prosecuted for terrorism offences, three of his fingernails had disappeared from his left hand. He says they were removed with pliers while he was being questioned about his associates in Pakistan, the July 2005 terrorist attacks in London, and an alleged plot against the United States.

While other detainees have also subsequently been prosecuted or deported to the UK and made subject to control orders, one vanished in bizarre circumstances and was subsequently said to have been killed in a US missile attack, although his family has not been given his body. A number have been released without charge.

A medical student from London who was held for almost two months in a building opposite the offices of the British deputy high commission in Karachi says he was tortured while being questioned about the 2005 London bombings before being questioned by British intelligence officers. He was released without charge and is now working at a hospital on the south coast of England, but is thought to remain deeply traumatised.

Binyam Mohamed: Guantanamo Torture Evidence Hidden from Obama

From The Guardian:

Binyam Mohamed, the UK resident detained in Guantánamo Bay, is to be visited by British officials and could be returned to Britain shortly, the foreign secretary, David Miliband, signalled today. The US authorities have agreed to treat Mohamed's case as "a priority", the minister said, enabling Britain to work with Washington for "a swift resolution".

London and Washington may want to act quickly, because yet more embarrassing detail on the case has emerged today.

Clive Stafford-Smith, Mohamed's lawyer, claims the US Department of Defense is preventing President Obama from seeing evidence of Mohamed's alleged mistreatment and torture. He has written to Obama:

You, as commander in chief, are being denied access to material that would help prove that crimes have been committed by US personnel. This decision is being made by the very people who you command.

Today's Obamameter: The Latest in US Foreign Policy (3 February)

Current Obamameter Reading: Fair but Long-Term Prospect of Storms

11:20 p.m. Well, not much to wrap up --- world still in one piece and Obama Administration preoccupied with the forced withdrawal of Tom Daschle's nomination for Health and Human Services Secretary because of tax problems.

We've got inside story on two major developments, however, regarding Afghanistan and Iran and will be leading the morning update with these in a few hours.

Good night and peace to all.



7:30 p.m. We're suspending service for the very good reason that we're seeing Steve Earle's son Justin in concert. Back later with an evening wrap-up.

6:10 p.m. Oops, Spoke Too Soon. We reported 30 minutes ago of far-from-panicked response of the US Administration to the Iran satellite launch, but in another sign that the Obama White House is far from unified in both message and policy, a Pentagon spokesman is not so laid back: "It is certainly a reason for us to be concerned about Iran and its continued attempts to develop a ballistic missile program of increasingly long range."

One can only hope that the US gets its act on Iran together before the meeting on Wednesday with Russia, China, and the EU-3 (Britain, France, and Germany) in Berlin. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton held the line today: ""It is clear that ... Iran has an opportunity to step up and become a productive member of the international community."

6 p.m. Score One for Moscow. As we projected this morning (10:25 a.m.), the Russian offer of aid to Kyrgyzstan has had consequences for the US. Reports indicate the US airbase, strategically important for support of Afghanistan, will be closed.

5:45 p.m. The Israeli Government won't be pleased, but this seems a sensible (if unofficial and anonymous) line on the Iran satellite launch from an Obama staffer. The strategic balance in the region is unaltered: ""The satellite technology they have deployed is probably not state of the art, but for the Iranians this is an important symbolic step forward."

1:45 p.m. The Islamic insurgent group, Al-Shabab, has called on Somalis to drive African Union troops out of the country.

11:25 a.m. An interesting piece from Reuters: "The Obama administration has toned down U.S. rhetoric against Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe, dropping for now a public demand the veteran African leader step down." Policy towards Zimbabwe is under review, but with no appointment yet of the State Department's top personnel for Africa, this may take take some time.

11:20 a.m. Iran Coming in from the US Cold? If so, one reason will be the increasingly difficult position for US and NATO forces in Afghanistan. NATO's top commander, General John Craddock, has told the Associated Press, that the alliance would not object to individual member nations making deals with Iran to supply their forces in Afghanistan: "Those would be national decisions. Nations should act in a manner that is consistent with their national interest and with their ability to resupply their forces."

10:45 a.m. Russia and the US may be maneouvring for advantages in places like Central Asia, but the direct relationship continues to improve. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov spoke by phone on Tuesday. The chief topic, according to a Russian statement, was "the mutual interest of building a positive agenda".

10:35 a.m. Update on the Stalemate over Drugs/AIDS Policy. The Guardian has a follow-up article on our analysis on Sunday about the State Department's blocking of any reference to "harm reduction" in a United Nations declaration on drug use and AIDS.

10:25 a.m. One to Watch in Central Asia. Russia, as part of its ongoing manoeuvres vs. the US for influence in the region, may offer "hundreds of millions of dollars in emergency aid" to Kyrgyzstan President Kurmanbek Bakiyev during his talks in Moscow with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev.

Kremlin officials said that military co-operation would be discussed but did not indicate whether the offer of the aid and that co-operation has any connection to current US efforts to renew the lease on its airbase in Kyrgyzstan. The US base is a vital supply route for forces in Afghanistan.

10 a.m. We've just posted a separate entry on the revelation in The Washington Post that a Pentagon memo says Blackwater, the security firm responsible for numerous civilian deaths in Iraq, is not subject to US criminal laws.

9:45 a.m. A Reminder Why Obama is Better. Today's New York Times has an editorial by a Mr John Bolton, who I believe was an official in the George W. Bush Administration, on Sunday's Iraqi provincial elections.

Not one of the 500 words is devoted, however, to the significance of the elections for Iraqis. Instead, Bolton's concern is how the vote "redefine Iran's role in the region".

Readers who move beyond the superficial headline --- or the question of why the Times continues to give space to Bolton to blow hard; the three reactions from Iraqi bloggers are far more important --- may recognise the strategy of the Bush Administration: make Iraq a demonstration to show American strength to others in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf. But, to keep it simple....

It's Not All About Iran.

7:45 a.m. The Flaws in the Afghanistan Strategy. We've just posted a separate entry on a revealing --- and disturbing --- speech by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of State yesterday.

Morning Update (7 a.m. GMT; 2 a.m. Washington): NATO statistics show a 30 percent increase in attacks by roadside bomb in Afghanistan in 2008. Overall attacks were up 31 percent, and deaths of US and NATO forces rose 26 percent.

Pakistani insurgents have blown up a major bridge in the Khyber Pass,west of Peshawar, further restricting movement along the supply route to US and NATO forces in Afghanistan. The US military is looking for alternative routes to the Pass and another route via Chaman to its Afghan base in Kandahar because of insurgent attacks; up to 75 percent of supplies to US and NATO forces could be affected. Pakistani military claimed it has killed 35 militants in fighting in the Swat Valley.

Iran, timing the breakthrough with the celebration of the 30th anniversary of the Islamic Revolution, has launched its first satellite orbiting the Earth.

Fighting in Somalia, which we reported yesterday, killed at least 39 civilians. The incident followed a bomb targeting African Union troops, which injured one soldier.