Assad welcomes Brahimi with breadline carnage

Hours after Syria troubleshooter Lakhdar Brahimi arrived in Damascus overland from Beirut because of fighting near Damascus airport, President Bashar al-Assad’s warplanes launched their deadliest air strike of the conflict on a bakery breadline near Hama.

Dozens of people were killed in the air strike while queuing for bread in the Hama province town of Halfaya, which was seized by rebels last week in their 21-month-old revolt against Assad.

One activist in Halfaya, Samer al-Hamawi, told Reuters news agency: "There is no way to really know yet how many people were killed. When I got there, I could see piles of bodies all over the ground.

"We hadn't received flour in around three days so everyone was going to the bakery today, and lots of them were women and children. I still don't know yet if my relatives are among the dead."

Hamawi said more than 1,000 people had been queuing at the bakery. Shortages of fuel and flour have made bread production erratic across the country, and people often wait for hours to buy loaves.

Hamawi, who spoke to Reuters via Skype, uploaded a video of the scene that showed dozens of dust-coated bodies lined up near a pile of rubble by a concrete building, its walls blackened.

Women and children were crying and screaming as some men rushed to the scene with motorbikes and vans to carry away the victims.

Other video footage of the incident's aftermath showed graphic images of bloody bodies strewn on the road outside the bakery.

Rescuers were trying to remove some of the victims buried beneath piles of bricks and rubble.

Several badly damaged motorbikes could be seen scattered near the site of the attack, which had drawn a number of armed men to the area.

The UK-based opposition activist group, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, said more than 50 of the wounded were in critical condition and the death toll could rise.

Rebels of the Free Syrian Army have been making a concerted push recently to take areas of Hama province.

Six days ago they declared Halfaya a "liberated area" after taking over Assad army positions there.

As has happened many times before, the Assad regime hit back with airpower at the area it lost.

Yesterday’s outrage comes as Brahimi arrived in Damascus to discuss ways to end the bloodbath.

There is no word as to when Assad would receive him.

However, Brahimi has made little progress on his troubleshooting mission. His proposed four-day truce over Eid al-Adha last October blew up within hours.

The primary demand of the rebels and the Syrian National Coalition of Revolutionary and Opposition Forces is for Assad to go. Should that happen, the international community is hoping there may be a chance for negotiations for a peaceful transfer of power.

According to the French daily Le Figaro, Brahimi is carrying a joint U.S.-Russian plan for such a transfer of power. The plan envisages formation of a transitional government comprising ministers acceptable to the two camps.

According to the plan, Assad would fully empower the proposed transitional government, then sit on the sidelines and complete his second seven-year term of office, ending in mid-2014.

Still in dispute between the Russians and the Americans is whether Assad would be allowed to run for a third term, which he is keen on doing.

Editorially, Tariq Alhomayed, outgoing editor-in-chief of the leading Saudi daily Asharq Alawsat, notes how fighting near Damascus airport forced the special envoy -- on his third trip to Syria since taking the post -- to arrive overland from neighboring Lebanon.

Sadly, he writes, “nothing new” awaits Brahimi in Damascus “except an added loss of time and lives.”

But Talal Salman, publisher and editor of the Beirut daily as-Safir, says: “Lakhdar Brahimi deserves a pat on the back for his resilience and insistence on seeing through his critical mission to save Syria from risks transcending its regime and threatening the unity of its people and body politic.”

The sine qua non for success of Brahimi’s mission is “an acknowledgment by the regime that it committed fatal mistakes in its handling of the crisis.

“The regime had no excuse for reneging on its reform promises, opting instead for confrontation. The result is that the regime is now fighting in the hearts of Damascus, Aleppo, Hama, Homs, Deir Ezzor, Deraa, Banias and elsewhere in Syria…

“The mistakes on the home front opened the door to outsiders.”

Brahimi’s task, Salman continues, is not so much to bail out the regime as to save Syria the state, its people’s unity and its role in its surroundings. 

Moscow’s bad long-distance call to Riyadh

King Abdullah decorating Vladimir Putin with the Order of King Abdulaziz (photo from en.rian.ru)

Tariq Alhomayed, editor in chief of Saudi Arabia's leading daily Asharq Alawsat, says Russian President Dmitry Medvedev's long-distance call to Saudi King Abdullah was meant to throw today's "Friends of Syria" conference in Tunis into confusion.

Looking at the wider picture, Lebanese analyst Rajeh el-Khoury says the monarch's curt response to Medvedev's explanation of the Russian position on Syria is proof the Arab-Islamic world's relations with Moscow are now on the downgrade.

Medvedev got on the telephone Wednesday to make three long-distance calls to explain Russia’s position on Syria. His explanation fell on receptive ears in Tehran and Baghdad but didn’t sit well with the Saudi monarch in Riyadh.

King Abdullah told the Russian president, "It would have been better if our Russian friends coordinated with the Arabs before using the veto in the Security Council" to block a resolution co-opting the Arab League peace plan.

“But now, any dialogue about the situation (in Syria) would be futile… We cannot forsake our moral and religious stance in Syria,” the Saudi state news agency SPA quoted the Saudi monarch as telling the Russian president.

In his editorial, Alhomayed describes the conversation as “uncommon” and “historic” in that “it drew a clear line between someone who wants to protect the killer of Syrians and someone who wants to protect them.”

In suggesting negotiations at this time, “the Russians clearly aim to bypass the ‘Friends of Syria’ conference, otherwise why didn’t they champion such a dialogue before? Why didn’t they -- on the same day Medvedev phoned the monarch -- publicly urge the Damascus tyrant to stop the killings and lift the Homs blockade? The answer is self-evident. They want to muddle the ‘Friends of Syria’ conference.”

King Abdullah, Alhomayed continues, took similar firm positions in his contacts with U.S. presidents over the years. He was the one to write George W. Bush telling him Saudi-U.S. relations were at risk if Washington did nothing to protect the Palestinians. He was the one to tell Bill Clinton:  “Mr. President, friendship has limits as well,” when the latter urged him to be more positive vis-à-vis Israel’s leaders. He was the one to stand up for protecting Syria after the assassination of Rafik Hariri, despite the enormity of the tragedy. And King Abdullah was also the one to take the floor at the Arab summit in Riyadh to declare that the U.S. Army in Iraq is an occupation army.

In contrast, says Alhomayed, Russia this week agreed to a daily two-hour cease-fire in Syria so emergency aid can reach beleaguered Syrian civilians. “Russia in other words, is telling Assad: Kill people 22 hours a day and spare their lives during the remaining two. That’s the difference between the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques and the values of those striving to protect the children-killer in Syria.

“That’s why the telephone conversation was both historic and uncommon.”

Rajeh el-Khoury, in Annahar, says the exchange between Medvedev and King Abdullah is bound to negatively affect Saudi-Russian ties as well as relations between the Arab-Islamic world and Moscow.

Though the conversation was brief, the monarch’s “curt response” to Medvedev’s “explanation” was effectively “an outcry in Moscow’s face.”

Khoury says the king used the words “our Russian friends” during the exchange because Riyadh had tried hard to refute claims it was a satellite in the U.S. orbit. The monarch must have had in mind his own ice-breaking 2003 trip to Russia and Vladimir Putin’s return visit to Riyadh in February 2007, when he was decorated with the Order of King Abdulaziz.

Exit Dabi, enter multinational observers for Syria?

Gen. al-Dhabi (photo from 25Jan-News.com)

Sudan’s controversial spymaster Mohammed al-Dabi has resigned as head of the Arab League observer mission to Syria.

The Arab League suspended observer work in Syria on January 28, citing mounting violence by President Bashar Assad's forces in key protest cities. The six members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) withdrew their observers from the mission completely.

The observers were tasked with determining whether Syria was complying with the Arab League peace plan from November that called on the Assad regime to return military forces to barracks, release political prisoners and begin a dialogue with the opposition.

The Arab League Council of Foreign Ministers, meeting later today in Cairo, will reportedly elect to restructure the mission altogether, raising the number of monitors to about 3,000 from under 200.

The inclination is to include an international component in the restructured mission by way of enrolling monitors from Arab, Islamic and foreign countries. The new mission would reportedly remain under Arab League command but be better equipped with body armor, reinforced vehicles and state-of-the-art communications gear.

It is doubtful if Damascus and Moscow would agree to a non-Arab observer component in Syria.

Tariq Alhomayed, editor of Saudi daily Asharq Alawsat, says the Arab foreign ministers should focus on three steps at their Cairo meting today: the Syrian regime’s expulsion from the Arab League, recognition of the opposition’s Syrian National Council and jump-starting the “Friends of Syria” coalition.

Is the Arab League's Nabil Elaraby a quisling?

Elaraby meeting with Assad (photo via allvoices.com)

The gutsy question referring to the head of the Arab League is raised in the leading Saudi daily Asharq Alawsat by non-other than its chief editor, Tariq Alhomayed.

In his editorial today, Alhomayed starts by explaining his reasons for casting doubts on the job performance of Nabil Elaraby before passing his judgment. Here in essence is what he wrote in Arabic this morning:

On July 17, 2011, and in the wake of Elaraby's trip to Syria and the remarks he made after meeting with Bashar al-Assad, I wrote an article saying: "The Syrians were very quick to build on the remarks made by the new Arab League secretary-general, Nabil Elaraby, whose statements could not have been made by someone seasoned in politics."

The 10-month old Syrian revolution has so far claimed some 7,000 lives. Thousands more are either detained or gone missing. But we’re back discussing Nabil Elaraby and his positions on Syria.

Mr. Elaraby defended Assad when he met with him in Damascus last July. He is fully aware nothing changed in the Syrian regime’s behavior since. Yet he persists in making odd and ambiguous decisions seemingly defending Assad.

Even at his last press conference in Cairo, Elaraby did not sound convincing on the new Arab peace initiative. It was Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim who spoke rationally and plainly.

Elaraby continues to sing out of tune. He chose Khaled Meshaal to relay a message to Assad, and Gen. al-Dabi to lead the Arab observer mission. He is now lobbying Egypt’s Mohamed ElBaradei to be his Syria envoy only because Assad could be more amenable to the appointment. That’s because of ElBaradei’s stands on the (2007) raid on Syria’s nuclear facility and on Iran’s nuclear program and his criticisms of the West and the Americans then. Is that a joke or a fact?

With all due respect to ElBaradei, what would he do in Syria? Would he pull out as he did in Egypt (when he dropped his presidency bid)? Would he pass from sight when Syrian demonstrators come under fire as he stayed away from Tahrir Square, presumably not to steal the limelight from the youths there?

All this is puzzling and warrants a legitimate query: So long as Elaraby chose Meshaal and al-Dabi and is now lining up ElBaradei, should we expect him to co-opt Azmi Bishara and Mohamed Hassanein Heikal next?

To answer the question in the headline, Elaraby does not seem to be a quisling. But he is far from understanding the region and its variables. A quisling needs to be smarter for sure.

Saudi Arabia talks tough on Syria & Arab League

Syria has dismissed -- as an infringement on its sovereignty -- a peace roadmap hammered out by the Arab League foreign ministers while Saudi Arabia suggests the plan is stillborn and the League itself is incurable.

Saudi Arabia pulled out of the League's Syria observer mission, whose mandate was renewed for another month on Sunday, saying Damascus had broken promises on the earlier Arab peace protocol.

The new League proposal, to be presented to the United Nations Security Council for endorsement, mirrors the Gulf plan on Yemen that saw President Ali Abdullah Saleh agree to leave office. It calls on President Bashar al-Assad to delegate power to his vice-president to engage in proper dialogue with the opposition within two weeks, and form a national unity government in two months, followed by presidential and parliamentary elections.

Tariq Alhomayed, chief editor of the leading Saudi daily Asharq Alawsat, which reflects and articulates official Saudi thinking, wonders if there are other Arab takers of the kingdom’s position on Syria.

He writes this Monday morning:

Saudi Arabia has shut out all procrastinators, dawdlers and conspirators against the Syrian people and their revolution. It has shut out all those trying to bail out the tyrant Assad when its foreign minister announced the withdrawal of Saudi monitors from Syria and appealed to the international, Arab and Islamic communities to exert all efforts possible to spare Syrian blood.

Foreign Minister Saud al-Feisal went further. He received a Syrian opposition delegation led by Burhan Ghalioun while the Arab League’s ministerial panel on Syria was in conference. This means he sought to bring down the curtain on dilly-dallying in the Arab League. He showed Saudi Arabia was determined to exercise its leadership role in the Arab and Moslem worlds in order to safeguard Syrian blood. His meeting with the Syrian opposition effectively tore up Gen. Mohammed al-Dabi’s progress report on the observer mission he headed in Syria.

Dabi’s report comes across as being submitted to Assad, confirming that the Arab League is irremediable. The Arab League’s role is bound to become worse when Nouri al-Maliki’s Iraq assumes the League’s rotating chairmanship. A lifeline would be thrown to Assad then, since Tehran is now openly declaring that Iraq is in Iran’s sphere of influence.

Having said that, the way forward is (1) to set up a regional alliance comprising Saudi Arabia and its Gulf partners, Turkey and other willing Arab and non-Arab states to take charge of the Syria file, and (2) for the five other members of the GCC to follow in Saudi Arabia’s footsteps and meet with Burhan Ghalioun and co-opt the Syrian opposition.

Arab press critics maul Assad speech

From my press archives

Three leading Arab press commentators today give the thumbs down to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s “conspiracy” speech.

Abdallah Iskandar, writing for the Saudi daily al-Hayat, says Assad’s was a deliberative “oration” meant to energize his backers. “His primary target was to rally his home front as he defines it – namely, partisans and supporters directly linked to his regime.” They include people in the armed forces and the “shabiha” paramilitary, members of his administration and his cronies.

Tariq Alhomayed, chief editor of Saudi Asharq Alawsat, says Assad effectively articulated more than 11,000 words in one hour and 40 minutes to communicate a “plea” more than anything else – a plea by a man in self-denial. “His talk of Arabs, of Arabized Arabs and of everyone else was a solicitation detached from reality. His was an upgraded version of Moammar Gaddafi’s ‘zanka, zanka’ address.”

Abdelwahhab Badrakhan, writing for the Beirut daily an-Nahar, says Assad’s rude remarks about the Arab states shows “he dismisses the Arab League and its initiative calling for dialogue between the regime and its opponents. Damascus will thus stick to its own reform plan, the one exalted by Russia and Iran. It advocates dialogue by the regime with itself and with opposition groups created by the regime to serve its purposes.”    

Syria… Is this true?

Photo by m2sat.com

My English wording of Tariq Alhomayed’s editorial appearing today in Arabic in Saudi Asharq Alawsat:

I was privy to confusing and disturbing information concerning the Arab League and its perception and handling of the Syria File and its view of the Syrian opposition. It was passed on to me by unimpeachable and highly informed sources. I am publishing it here in the style of unprejudiced queries so as to give the Arab League the benefit of the doubt.

The information suggests that, in explaining conditions in Syria and how to handle them, a very senior League official told his visitor, “There are not more than 3,000 Syrian activists on the ground. They instigate the street protests. The regime of Bashar al-Assad is looking for them. The finale in Syria will come when the regime hunts them down and gets rid of them.”

The aforesaid official expects this to happen by February. He also questions the Syrian opposition’s commitment. He questions its sources of funding, saying: “It has oodles of cash… I wish I knew where from.”

Others at the League are tittle-tattling that a Gulf state supplied Assad’s regime with electronic surveillance technologies to intercept “Thuraya” satellite mobile phone sets (used by activists for satellite communication).  My authoritative source involved in this file says Assad’s regime was the first to spread the rumor, which has since been picked up by some Arabs. He says Intelligence data however shows it’s the Iranians who are supplying Assad’s regime with the electronic surveillance technologies. They used them to great effect to put down the Green Revolution protests at home.

The information does not stop here. It says deployment of Gulf members of the monitoring team was held up by the regime's attempt to bar entry to those hailing from Qatar. The other Gulfites stood by the Qataris, which embarrassed the Arab League and forced Assad’s regime to let them all in.

In the same vein, and according to my authoritative source, Assad’s regime did not sign the monitoring protocol before getting word from the Arab League that Sudanese Gen. M. al-Dabi will head the observer mission.

All the above raises concern over Arab League intentions vis-à-vis the Syrian revolution. Do we have here a case of breakdown and confusion or one of bad intentions aimed at buoying up Assad’s regime despite its crimes?

So, what’s happening in truth?