martes, 26 de abril de 2011

Artículo No. 30 Syrian president plays for time - and wins Political analyst Grigory Melamedov for RIA Novosti


The fighting in Libya has dominated the headlines, largely overshadowing the violent protests in Syria. But President Bashar Assad's dismissal of his government on March 29 thrust Syria and its troubles onto the front page. Unlike Libya, Syria is a key country in the Middle East, and its destabilization could have dramatic consequences for the region.
The majority of Syrians are Sunni Muslims, but the ruling Assad family is from the minority Alawite sect. For centuries, the Alawites have fused elements of Shiite Islam, Christianity and uniquely Alawite traditions.
The Alawites have been the most politically active group in Syria, and they received many key posts in the government after Hafez Assad, the father of the current president, came to power in February 1971. By that time, Shiite religious leaders, motivated by political reasons, had recognized Alawites as part of their religion. Even as Shiites, however, the Assad clan still belonged to a religious minority in a predominantly Sunni country, which is why the current Syrian government is deeply secular.
Contrary to expectations, this has not made Syria particularly vulnerable during a time of growing Islamic radicalism. Instead, Syria gradually became the main Arab ally of Shiite-ruled Iran. Through Syria, Iran funds Lebanon's Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations. Radical Palestinian organizations also see Syria as a major supporter due to its hostile attitude toward Israel.
Strange though it may seem, the bulk of Israeli politicians want Syria to remain stable. If Assad is overthrown, Israel's border with Syria, which has been quiet for over 30 years, could become battleground under new political leadership.
The United States, which until quite recently viewed Syria as an enemy alongside Libya and Iran, has gradually come to realize that peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors is impossible without Syria's support. Moreover, Syria alone is capable of resolving the conflict between Hamas, which now rules Gaza, and Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah party, which controls the West Bank.
In 2010, the West changed its policy toward Syria, seeking to woo this critical Middle East power away from Iran.
Syria has also become the main strategic partner of Turkey, whose influence in the Middle East is growing rapidly. Although they came to the brink of war over a territorial dispute several years ago, the Kurdish problem has brought the two nations together.
In 2004 government forces put down a Kurdish revolt in the north of Syria with great difficulty, but tensions could boil over any day. Meanwhile, Kurdish separatists in Turkey have called off their truce with government forces, which could have a significant impact on the upcoming parliamentary elections in June 2011.
Therefore, Turkey will do its best to prevent destabilization in Syria and new unrest in the Syrian part of Kurdistan.
In short, everyone wants Assad to remain in power. U.S. President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have given Assad tacit approval to put down the protests by stating that the United States won't enter into the internal conflict in Syria.
Syria faces the same economic and social problems that plague the majority of Arab countries, including nearly 25% unemployment among young people and very modest living standards compared to other Arab countries. It not surprising that Syria got caught up in the wave of protests that have swept the Arab world.
The situation was further aggravated by a crippling drought in Syria's farming region around Dera'a, where the first bloody clashes were reported before demonstrations spread to other cities. In other Arab countries, protesters demanded the resignation of their leaders; in Syria, people say they want the government to resign, but not everyone is against Assad - far from it.
For a variety of reasons, Assad's grip on power is much firmer than that of his less fortunate colleagues in the region. Unlike in Egypt, the army in Syria cannot act as a mediator (and has never tried), because it is fully controlled by the president. Bashar Assad and his father somehow managed to prevent their generals from becoming political leaders.
The secular opposition in Syria is not unified, and, moreover, it is disconnected from the people. The Islamic organizations, although they are closer to the people, have no foreign support. Besides, Assad has repeatedly launched political attacks against Syria's Islamic organizations, preventing them from gaining influence and producing popular leaders.
President Assad has announced reforms in a bid to keep tensions from escalating into full-scale civil unrest. He has promised to lift the 48-year emergency law and to liberalize the country's political system. After protesters were killed last week, Assad shifted the blame onto his ministers, whom he later fired.
On March 24, he put forward a reform plan that includes creating a multiparty system, adopting a new law on the media, reforming the courts, and redoubling efforts to fight unemployment and corruption. He began by raising salaries to public servants by 30%.
A savvy politician, Assad has managed to turn the dismissal of the government into a PR coup for himself. Happy Syrians held demonstrations in many cities in support of their president and his reforms.
Assad will most likely succeed in quelling the protests, while at the same time drawing out the reform process and postponing the first multiparty elections. This may provoke new unrest directed against the president himself. But by that time, the situation in the Arab world will most likely have evolved, and the dominos will have stopped collapsing.
For now, Bashar Assad has achieved his goal: he has bought himself some time.
The views expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.

Artículo No. 29 Asia Times 31.3.11 Queen Hillary of Libya By Pepe Escobar


The current stalemate in Libya could last weeks, if not months. In that case, balkanization looms. Think of eastern Libya with Benghazi as capital, oil-rich and with a United States-installed puppet regime (a Libyan Hamid Karzai, like the Afghan president). It would be like a kind of northern Africa Saudi Arabia (the House of Saud would love it).
And think of a western Libya with Tripoli as capital, impoverished, angry and ruled by Muammar Gaddafi and sons. If that applies, we're back to the 1950s; Libya as the new Korea. Or, more ominously, back to the 1960s; Libya as the new Vietnam.

Vietnam? No wonder a paranoid Anglo-American-French consortium will pull all stops to take out Gaddafi. They don't want half a spring roll; they want the whole kebab.

The queen's speech
The new Libyan government kingmaker is actually a queen: US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Any doubts that the US State Department is now frantically setting up a new government peppered with English-speaking collaborators have been dismissed after the London conference on Libya.

The "official" Libyan opposition used to tautologically call itself "Interim Transitional National Council". Now it's Interim National Council (INC). Anyone running for cover to the sound of the acronym INC is excused; it does bring appalling memories of the Washington-propped Iraqi National Congress and its fabled "weapons of mass destruction" in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

And what about the INC's new military commander, Khalifa Hifter - a former Libyan army colonel who spent nearly 20 years in Vienna, Virginia, not far from the Central Intelligence Agency in Langley? Progressives will love to learn that the romantic "rebels" are now led by a CIA asset.

At the London conference, the INC launched in style its slick political manifesto - "A vision of democratic Libya" - which makes all the right noises; freedom of expression, presidential and parliamentary elections, and crucially, the promise of "a state that draws strength from our strong religious beliefs in peace, truth, justice and equality".

This is - extremely polite - code for Islam in post-Gaddafi Libya (so not to ruff Western feathers). Along with the impeccable English redaction, the whole thing screams, "slick Western PR stunt". The council swears the platform was originally drawn up in Arabic. It definitely doesn't feel like a Google Translate job.

So the INC says the gift to the West for the Tomahawks, Tornados and Rafales is going to be a secular democracy. Someone else might say a coalition of opportunists and military defectors climbed upon the wave of mass radicalization in northern Africa, profited from the absence of political leadership among the working class and middle class, and struck a military alliance with Western imperialism. Which is more plausible?

The INC now is being paraded for the whole world to see as a Western puppet - totally dependent on political and military support. Welcome to Libya as a Pentagon-style forward operating base (FOB) - to the benefit of the Pentagon itself (via Africom), Western oil majors, and all manner of shady Anglo-French-American business interests (see There's no business as war business Asia Times Online March 30 ). Welcome to a new Libya hosting a US military base and NATO exercises, and not spending oil money in sub-Saharan African development projects.

As major players - the BRIC countries and Germany – had already warned, United Nations Security Council resolution 1973 is being twisted like a pretzel. Queen Hillary now openly says that arming the "rebels" is legal. Another one of the queen's women combat squad, US ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, said the US had "not ruled out" arming the rebels - mimicking the exact wording of President Barack Obama. Impressed, British Foreign Secretary William Hague agreed. So did Qatar.

Meanwhile, NATO is taking over. Literally. Starting this Thursday, NATO's air strikes will be conducted out of the Combined Air Operations Center at Poggio Renatico base in Italy, 40 kilometers north of Bologna. But that's just the start.

Admiral James Stavridis, NATO's supreme allied commander for Europe, told a US senate hearing in Washington NATO was not considering ground forces in post-Gaddafi Libya - at least not yet. But as NATO had installed peacekeepers in the Balkans, added Stavridis, "the possibility of a stabilization regime exists".

There you have it - the whole package; a Western puppet regime, Western boots on the ground, a squalid Western protectorate. Goodbye to Libya's sovereignty. And this only a few hours after Obama passionately told the world this was just a humanitarian mission.

It requires major suspension of disbelief that an Obama administration that keeps unleashing drones and air strikes over civilians in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and - now and then - Somalia is now deeply concerned with protecting Libyan civilians. "Democratic" Israel may bomb 1,500 Lebanese civilians in 2006 or kill nearly 1,500 civilians in the winter of 2008/2009 in Gaza - and no way there will be a UN resolution, or Tomahawks flying, or righteous humanitarian imperialists invoking R2P (“responsibility to protect”) en masse.

In 1999, NATO almost destroyed Belgrade to "protect civilians" in Kosovo. Kosovo subsequently became an infinitely corrupt protectorate ruled by a drug mafia. Cue to echoes of neo-cons arguing that the real reason for Washington to invade Iraq was to "protect" Iraqis from the evil dictator Saddam by bringing democracy (by shock and awe).

The stark fact is that Washington - now with Anglo-French help - is bombing yet another Muslim/Arab capital. Miraculously - if one believes the Pentagon - with zero "collateral damage".

And what about the Ivory Coast?
A true genocide is about to happen in the Ivory Coast. There are already one million internal refugees. The "international community" - which now seems to consist of the US, Britain, France, a few NATO countries and a few Arab autocracies, with Qatar as the superstar - has not emitted a peep.

Laurent Gbagbo lost a presidential election in the Ivory Coast but has refused to concede. He controls a huge militia armed to their teeth - and they're going all guns blazing to snatch elected opposition figures, intellectuals and civil society leaders. Anyone who has supported the winner of the election, Alassane Ouattara, is fair game.

Shades of Gaddafi, anyone? Better yet; shades of Rwanda in 1994, Uganda in 2008 and Congo during the 1990s. Not a few thousand dead civilians but hundreds of thousands of dead civilians (and in the case of Congo, perhaps as many as four million). Not a R2P (responsibility to protect) squeak from the "international community".

If the Anglo-French-American consortium really wanted to stop the violence in Libya the sensible solution would have been to dispatch an UN fact-finding commission to really analyze the facts on the ground. No one really knows how many civilians Gaddafi forces killed, or how many air strikes his regime conducted. No one really knows how many black Africans have been raped or murdered by the “rebels”, who assumed they were Gaddafi mercenaries.

Gaddafi himself agreed to an independent UN commission. The first measure of R2P is not to exercise the Tomahawk option; it is to mediate, call for a ceasefire and start negotiations.

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is correct when he says this "humanitarian" war is fast becoming a "second Iraq" or "another Afghanistan". He also said Turkey is talking to both Gaddafi and the INC. Sensibly - and as part of NATO - Turkey is about to take over the harbor and the airport in Benghazi to speed up humanitarian aid. If there is a ceasefire the credit must go to Turkey - which is working hard to establish a humanitarian corridor, with support from Italy. Neo-Napoleonic Arab liberator French President Nicolas Sarkozy won't be amused.

Turkey is also linking up with the African Union (AU) - which has been totally marginalized by the Anglo-French-American consortium. France and Britain may be paranoid about the upcoming immigration waves from Africa, now that Libya - which was the cop on the beat for the Europeans - is not playing that role anymore. Italy - already coping with waves and waves of new arrivals at the isle of Lampedusa - at least is trying to work in the humanitarian front alongside Turkey.

There's no guarantee Turkey's mediation efforts will work. The Pentagon/Africom/NATO foreign intervention in Libya - "legitimized" by a dodgy UN cover - is shaping up as a counter-revolutionary master coup. Make no mistake as to what is the ultimate target; to squash the great 2011 Arab revolt momentum, to show who's boss, and to present neo-colonialism with a facelift. To see how it develops, one just has to focus on Queen Hillary's speech. 

Artículo No. 28 Daily View: Is Syria different? Clare Spencer |BBC 30 March 2011


As Syria's President Bashar al-Assad is expected to unveil reforms in first public speech since security forces curbed anti-government protests, commentators discuss how the country has been run and predict what comes next.
In the Guardian Syrian writer Rana Kabbani calls the ruling Assad family a mafia whose regime brainwashed her at school and protesters are now paying a high price to get their voices heard:
"Their protest has a very high cost. They are subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment without trial, or trial by military court. Despite having no independent judiciary to defend them, no freedom of speech and no right to demonstrate, they are resolved to change their country for the better, whatever it may take. The most recent concession is the resignation of the cabinet. This and the staged pro-regime demonstrations that have just taken place are an indication not of how strong the Assads actually are, but rather of how weak and surpassed by political events they have become - much like the Mubaraks, Ben Alis, Gaddafis and Salehs of this new Arab world, which has been suddenly sentenced to hope."
assan Haidar says in Al Arabiya that there is no going back to the days of accepting without question what the Syrian president decides:

"[E]ven if Al-Assad does succeed in containing the current wave of protests using different methods, the situation in the country will definitely not go back to what it was; and he will be forced to deal with the Syrian demands on the domestic level after the "foreign level" depleted its role."
Simon Tisdall says in the Guardian that the Syrian president Bashar al-Assad's faults can be blamed on the US:

"Assad's failure so far to pursue a reform agenda, and the crisis confronting him now, could be laid in part at the door of the US, Israel and European countries that were hostile to Syria and had weakened it through economic sanctions and trade embargoes, [Sami Khiyami, Syria's ambassador in London] said. Syria was a proud, dignified country that was 'difficult to tame'. Despite what they claimed, the great powers would actually prefer the Middle East to remain a 'buffer zone' between the west and Asia, an excluded, unrepresented, under-performing, second-class region with no real say in international affairs, he said."
Professor of Middle East history at Trinity University, David Lesch says in the New York Times that he knows the Syrian president and maybe it would be best for the country if he stayed in power:

"Even with the escalating violence there, it's important to remember that Syria is not Libya and President Assad is not Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi. The crackdown on protesters doesn't necessarily indicate that he is tightening his grip on power; it may be that the secret police, long given too much leeway, have been taking matters into their own hands.

"What's more, anti-Assad elements should be careful what they wish for. Syria is ethnically and religiously diverse and, with the precipitous removal of central authority, it could very well implode like Iraq. That is why the Obama administration wants him to stay in power even as it admonishes him to choose the path of reform."
Sami Moubayed suggests in Asia Times that, unlike other leaders, in Syria the unrest is an opportunity for Bashar al-Assad:

"Unlike in Egypt and Tunisia, Syrians see Assad as part of the solution in their country, and not, like Hosni Mubarak and Zein al-Abidine Ben Ali, as part of the problem. He is young, closer to their age than both presidents had been to young Egyptians and Tunisians, and has not been around for too long, as the case with Colonel Muammar Gaddafi in Libya or Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh.

"Additionally his positions vis-a-vis Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza, two topics that are dear to the hearts of grassroots Syrians, have given him a protective shield that other Arab leaders do not enjoy. It is a golden opportunity for the Syrian president to make history - and Syrians are betting on him, rather than on mob violence, to bring change to their country."

Artículo No. 27 Al Arabiya ANKARA (Agencies)


Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan said on Monday Syrian President Bashar al-Assad had not given him "a negative answer" when he urged him to listen to his people in two telephone calls over the last three days.
"We advised Mr. Assad that responding to people's years-old demands positively with a reformist approach would help Syria to overcome the problems more easily," Erdogan told journalists before leaving Ankara for a visit to Iraq.
Erdogan said he had suggested to Assad that he meet some of the demands of thousands of people who have taken part in pro-democracy demonstrations across Syria.
"He said they were working on lifting the state of emergency to meet demands. They told us they were working on political parties ... we hope these measures are actually implemented rather than remaining promises," Erdogan said.

"We did not receive a negative answer when we urged Mr. Assad to listen to the voice of people. I hope he makes the announcement today or tomorrow."

Dozens of people have been killed in the demonstrations, which have presented Assad with the gravest crisis in his 11-year rule. On Saturday, he deployed the army for the first time in the port of Latakia.

Erdogan said the chief of the National Intelligence Agency of Turkey (MIT) visited Syria Sunday for talks, and that Turkey was closely watching developments in the country

Turkish officials have been guarded in commenting on events in Syria. Relations between the two countries have improved since Erdogan's AK Party came to power, while Turkey's old friendship with Israel has soured.

"It is impossible for us to remain silent in the face of these events, we have a 800 km (500 miles) long border with Syria," Erdogan said.

Turkey's ruling AK party has implemented a reform program since coming to power almost a decade ago to try to strengthen democracy and modernize the economy.

Syria has been shaken by two weeks of anti-regime protests, forcing Syrian authorities to announce said Sunday they would end decades of emergency rule in the country.

The lifting of the country's emergency law would end draconian conditions in place since the Baath party came to power in March 1963.
Responsible for aid to Libya
Asked about operations in Libya, to be taken over by NATO, Erdogan said Turkey had agreed to take responsibility for humanitarian aid distribution at the airport in the rebel stronghold Benghazi and Turkish naval forces would help control the corridor between Crete and Benghazi.

"We have not been the country who is dropping bombs or firing bullets, and nor will we be," he said.

Erdogan and Foreign Minister Davutoglu are expected to attend an international meeting in London on Tuesday to discuss the Libya operation and the country's future.

Erdogan, who is expected to win a third term in office in an election in June, told Britain's Guardian newspaper in a report published on Sunday that Turkey was prepared to act as mediator to broker an early ceasefire in Libya and he said any drawn-out conflict risked turning Libya into a second Iraq.

ANKARA (Agencies)
Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan said on Monday Syrian President Bashar al-Assad had not given him "a negative answer" when he urged him to listen to his people in two telephone calls over the last three days.

"We advised Mr. Assad that responding to people's years-old demands positively with a reformist approach would help Syria to overcome the problems more easily," Erdogan told journalists before leaving Ankara for a visit to Iraq.

Erdogan said he had suggested to Assad that he meet some of the demands of thousands of people who have taken part in pro-democracy demonstrations across Syria.
"He said they were working on lifting the state of emergency to meet demands. They told us they were working on political parties ... we hope these measures are actually implemented rather than remaining promises," Erdogan said.

"We did not receive a negative answer when we urged Mr. Assad to listen to the voice of people. I hope he makes the announcement today or tomorrow."

Dozens of people have been killed in the demonstrations, which have presented Assad with the gravest crisis in his 11-year rule. On Saturday, he deployed the army for the first time in the port of Latakia.

Erdogan said the chief of the National Intelligence Agency of Turkey (MIT) visited Syria Sunday for talks, and that Turkey was closely watching developments in the country

Turkish officials have been guarded in commenting on events in Syria. Relations between the two countries have improved since Erdogan's AK Party came to power, while Turkey's old friendship with Israel has soured.

"It is impossible for us to remain silent in the face of these events, we have a 800 km (500 miles) long border with Syria," Erdogan said.

Turkey's ruling AK party has implemented a reform program since coming to power almost a decade ago to try to strengthen democracy and modernize the economy.

Syria has been shaken by two weeks of anti-regime protests, forcing Syrian authorities to announce said Sunday they would end decades of emergency rule in the country.

The lifting of the country's emergency law would end draconian conditions in place since the Baath party came to power in March 1963.
Responsible for aid to Libya
Asked about operations in Libya, to be taken over by NATO, Erdogan said Turkey had agreed to take responsibility for humanitarian aid distribution at the airport in the rebel stronghold Benghazi and Turkish naval forces would help control the corridor between Crete and Benghazi.

"We have not been the country who is dropping bombs or firing bullets, and nor will we be," he said.

Erdogan and Foreign Minister Davutoglu are expected to attend an international meeting in London on Tuesday to discuss the Libya operation and the country's future.

Erdogan, who is expected to win a third term in office in an election in June, told Britain's Guardian newspaper in a report published on Sunday that Turkey was prepared to act as mediator to broker an early ceasefire in Libya and he said any drawn-out conflict risked turning Libya into a second Iraq.

Artículo No. 26 LA JORNADA 27.3.11 BAJO LA LUPA Por Alfredo JALIFE-RAHME SIRIA:LA PRIMERA REVUELTA ÁRABE POR EL AGUA Y EL CAMBIO CLIMÁTICO.


El extatico aroma del jazmin revolucionario ha despertado los rescoldos acumulados en el mundo arabe en los recientes 60 años y cada region,subregion,pais,provincia y hasta aldea aprovecha la oportunidad para acudir a su inesperada cita con la historia y asi manifestar al su lista de legitimos agravios idiosincraticos  frente a los cuales las satrapias se encuentran impotentes en reaccionar ilustre e ilustradamente.
El extático aroma de la revolucion del jazmín del paradigma tunecino alcanzó dramaticamente el sur de Siria, en la frontera con Jordania e Israel,lo cual comienza a sacudir su andamiaje transfronterizo y la geopolitica regional,específicamente en la ciudad agrícola de Daraa que padece una severa penuria del agua debido al cambio climatico de los recientes 5 años donde las precipitaciones pluviales han disminuido 60%.
El aroma revolucionario del jazmin irrumpe en la hiper-complejidad del Creciente Fértil,que ya habiamos formulado en nuestra taxonomia de las cinco subregiones arabes(ver Bajo la Lupa;6.3.11) donde el grado de las sutilezas y los matices aumenta considerablemente.
Daraa,ciudad de la provincia de Houran y frontera con Jordania,se encuentra a 100 kilometros del sur de Damasco sobre la carretera que la conecta con Amman(capital de Jordania).Ai la revolucion transfronteriza de Daraa se encuentra prácticamente equidistante de Damasco(capital de Siria)y Amman(capital de Jordania,donde ha recrudecido la contestacion).
Daraa representa un bastión sunnita de 755,000 habitantes en la super-estratégica planicie de Hauran,lo cual ha colocado a la defensiva al nepotismo de los Assad de 41 años en el poder(30 con el padre Hafez y 11 con su hijo el “reformista” Bashar).
Las protestas de los sunnitas de Daraa se han intensificado y han empezado a propagarse a varias ciudades de Siria en forma alarmante ,pero todavía no determinante para defenestrar al nepotismo de los Assad que depende,a mi humilde juicio,de la aquiescencia de la burguesia sunnita de las grandes ciudades y,a nivel regional,de la anuencia de 3 potencias sunnitas regionales:Turquia(su relevante frontera),Egipto y Arabia Saudita(con la que mantiene excelentes relaciones,pese a la alianza estrategica de Damasco con Iran).Se trata de la alta-precision del engranaje de un reloj muy fino.
Se pudiera aducir que las protestas todavía no alcanzan la masa crítica para una revolución ya que, en un análisis estricto,se encuentran confinadas a la ciudad de Daraa-----en la cercania de las super-estrategicas Alturas del Golan(pletoricas en agua y ocupadas y saquedas por Israel)---- donde las fuerzas de seguridad (los siniestros “mukhabarat”) perpetraron el error infantil de encarcelar a unos adolescentes inofensivos por haber osado escribir graffiti  contra el gobierno,lo que luego desembocó en una confrontación con la población local que ha arrojado un saldo entre 17 y 100 muertos(dependiendo de quien manipule las cifras).
El epicentro de la revuelta de Daraa se concentra en la mezquita al Al-Omari y ya se salio del control del regimen atrapado sin salida que ha recurrido cosmeticamente a promesas invaluables desde el levantamiento de la ley de emergencia hasta por la permision de participacion de otros partidos fuera del Baas,edulcorado con la subita liberacion de 250 detenidos.
Siria se encuentra gobernada desde el golpe de estado de 1970 por la secta minoritaria de los alawitas (a la que pertenecen los Assad):una excrecencia del chiísmo(13%) que gobierna a la mayoría de sunnitas (74%) y a las minorías de cristianos(10%) y druzos(3%)---Datos de la CIA.
Entre la mayoria sunnita habria que incluir a los kurdos no-arabes que representan el 10% de la poblacion.
Es evidente el riesgo de balcanizacion en varias entidades que fracturaria su mosaico mantenido a sangre y fuego durante 41 años(v.gr el genocidio de los “hermanos musulmanes”,con presunta bendicion “occidental” e israeli,en la ciudad de Hama,que ,dependiendo de quien manipule las cifras, van desde 20,000 hasta 100,000 asesinados).
Ya habra tiempo para detenernos sobre el riesgo de balcanizacion de Siria en cinco entidades:sunnita, alawita (que en 1922 proclamo su autonomia y ,luego, varias veces su independencia),druza,kurda y cristiana.
Sin adentrarnos por el momento a la correlación de fuerzas étnicas y religiosas en el delicado mosaico plural de Siria(22.5 millones de habitantes),es fundamental ubicar el número poblacional de sus mas importantes ciudades:Alepo(3 millones) ;Damasco(capital:2.5 millones);Homs (1.3 millones);Hama(854 mil); y Latakia (650 mil habitantes y su principal puerto; igualitariamente repartidos entre sunnitas y alawitas, con una minoría de cristianos).
Mas allá de la caída del régimen, que todavía no se vislumbra en lo inmediato----porque puede repetirse el “modelo Bahrain” implementado por las 6 petromonarquias del Consejo de Cooperación del Golfo encabezado por Arabia Saudita----,la crisis de Daraa estaba escrita en el muro cuando el nepotismo de los Assad descuido la ominosa desertificacion de la otrora fértil planicie de Houran,cuyo “suelo volcánico” lo habia convertido en “el granero de Oriente Medio cuando abundaban las lluvias en tiempos otomanos”,segun Khaled Yacoub Oweis(KYO) de Reuters(19.3.11).
KYO aduce que “en el este de Siria, la crisis hídrica de los últimos cinco años, que según expertos se debe mayormente a la mala gestión estatal de recursos, ha sumido a 800,000 personas en la extrema pobreza, según un informe de Naciones Unidas en el 2010.Cientos de miles de personas más fueron desplazadas”.Agrega que “otros productores también han resultado afectados por las escasas lluvias y recortes a los subsidios. El Ministerio de Agricultura dijo que las cosechas en la provincia agrícola de Daraa en Hauran cayeron 25% el año pasado”.
Daniel Willimas(TNYT;2.3.11) cita un reporte de la ONU:“las lluvias son 45% y 66% en promedio menores a lo normal(sic) en 3 provincias orientales de Siria en los pasados 2 años”. La falta de agua ha causado que m{as de 800,000 personas en la parte oriental de Siria pierdan casi todo su modus vivendi.
Segun del Departamento de Agricultura de EU,la cosecha de trigo ha disminuido a la mitad.
Al mas de un millon de refugiados de la guerra de EU y Gran Bretaña en Iraq,se ha sumado otro medio millon de desplazados  internos---los campesinos sunnitas que huyen de las sequias de la planicie sureña de Houran (Daraa) y los kurdos de la ciudad norteña de Qamishli(frontera con Turquia y cerca de Iraq con 200,000 habitantes)----quienes viven en condiciones infrahumanas en tiendas de campaña en Damasco junto a insolentes campos de golf muy bien irrigados de la plutocracia. !Luego quieren que no existan revoluciones!
Un reporte del Banco Mundial(15.8.08) sentencia que “el Medio-Oriente y Nor-Africa es la región mas afectada por la penuria global del agua”.
Estudios de la ONU proyectan que “30 paises sufriran carencia de agua  en los proximos 15 años,de los cuales 18 se encuentran en el Medio-Oriente y Nor-Africa” (Reuters;20.3.11).
Ante la penuria estructural del agua no existe satrapia, monarquia,plutocracia o democracia que evite una revuelta y/o revolucion.

Artículo No. 25 Haaretz 26.03.11 Is Syria reaching the point of no return? Friday's demonstrations were a first step on a long path that could end with the fall of the regime of Bashar Assad. By Avi Issacharoff


A resident of Daraa, the capital city of the Huran region of Syria where protests against the regime of Bashar Assad began more than ten days ago, said yesterday during another clash between the citizens and security forces that the confrontations are the first step towards toppling the regime.
In conversation with a Reuters reports, 'Ibrahim' said that the people had reached the 'point of no return'. It is difficult, however, to determine at this time if Ibrahim's words reflect reality. He made the obvious comparison between what is transpiring in Syria and the revolutions in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya.

But that comparison actually points out the obvious difference between Syria and the rest of the countries in the Arab world that experienced upheavals in the last two months: the amount of participants.
It is hard to estimate the extent of the anti-government demonstrations that took place on Friday across the country. The reports emanating from Syria are truncated, cut off, and the number of casualties from these events, like the number of participants, is unclear.

But what is clear is that at least in the large cities like Damascus, Halab, and even in Latakia and Homs, there weren't tens of thousands of people in the streets, as there were in Daraa. There were already many thousands of people in the streets of Benghazi, Cairo and Tunis in the early stages, but in Damascus only several hundreds people participated in the protests on Friday.

Also, most of the demonstrations on Friday were in protest over the killing of civilians in Daraa, not demanding to topple the regime and the president.

Despite this, it can be said that Friday's demonstrations were a first step on a (very long) path that could end with the fall of the regime in Syria. It was an historic day for Syria under the rule of Bashar Assad.

Until two weeks ago, the president had only experienced demonstrations in the Kurdish region, mainly in the city of Kamishli, and nowhere else. In the last two weeks, the protests have been focused in Daraa and other cities and villages in one of the poorest regions in the country.

On Friday, for the first time, the disturbances spread to cities all over Syria, and the mere fact that demonstrations took place, even if hundreds of thousands of Syrians did not take part in them, mark the events as exceptional, the start of something. It should be remembered that the call to topple the regime was also not uttered by hundreds of thousands in Tunisia on the first day of their demonstrations.

It would seem that at this point, the future of Syria in good measure depends on Bashar Assad and his security forces. The army's decision to physically quash the demonstrations in Daraa has turned out to be foolish, as it has led to intensification in protests across the country.

If Assad continues with this show of force he is trying to put on, it would seem that the number of people participating in the protests will only increase.

On the other hand, the president could take a series of dramatic steps that would change the face of Syria and calm tensions. But until now the Syrian president has settled for only symbolic steps, the announcement of marginal reforms and blaming the international media for what is taking place in Syria – which closely mirrors the way in which Mubarak in Egypt and Ben Ali in Tunisia tried to hold on to power.

Assad is currently dealing with a number of problems, the solutions for which are not visible on the horizon. First, real reforms in Syria, like the ability to form new political parties, the abolition of the emergency law, and others, are likely to lead in the end to major changes in Syria, including his eventual departure.

Assad's insistence on battling the protesters, could bring him to the point in which he will be forced into conflict with the international community, as in the case of Muammar Gadhafi. His biggest problem, and he knows it, is that something in Syria already fell on Friday. His opponents' fear factor has been broken.

And one final note: Over the course of the last few weeks, Al-Jazeera's broadcasts on the revolutions in the Arab world have included the commentary of the former Member of Knesset Azmi Bashara, considered an insider of the Syrian regime.

For some reason, since the demonstrations in Syria began to spread, Bishara has refrained from commenting and explaining the goings-on in Syria to the Arab public.

Artículo No. 24 Libya's Opposition Leadership Comes into Focus March 20, 2011 | STRATFOR


Summary
Libya has descended to a situation tantamount to civil war, with forces loyal to Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi in the west pitted against rebels from the east. However, one of the biggest problems faced by Western governments has been in identifying exactly who the rebels are. Many of the rebels, including former Libyan Justice Minister Mustafa Abdel-Jalil and former Interior Minister Gen. Abdel Fatta Younis, defected early on from the Gadhafi regime and represent what came to be the Transitional National Council (TNC), which promptly lobbied Western government for support after its formation. In light of logistical and maintenance capabilities militarily, further defections would certainly help the rebels achieve victory, though there has been no sign of such defections.

Editor’s note:This analysis was originally published March 8 but has been significantly updated with current, accurate information.

Analysis
Identifying the Opposition

One of the biggest problems Western governments have faced throughout the Libyan crisis has been in identifying who exactly the “eastern rebels” are. Until the uprising began in February, there was thought to be no legitimate opposition to speak of in the country, and thus no contacts between the United States, the United Kingdom, France or others. Many of those who now speak for the rebel movement headquartered in Benghazi. There have been several defections, however, from the regime of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi to the eastern rebel leadership, and it is men like these with whom the West is now trying to engage as the possible next generation of leadership in Libya, should its unstated goal of regime change come to fruition.

The structure through which the Libyan opposition is represented is formally known as the Interim Transitional National Council, more commonly referred to as the Transitional National Council (TNC). The first man to announce its creation was former Libyan Justice Minister Mustafa Abdel-Jalil, who defected from the government Feb. 21, and declared the establishment of a “transitional government” Feb. 26. At the time, Abdel-Jalil claimed that it would give way to national elections within three months, though this was clearly never a realistic goal.

One day after Abdel-Jalil’s announcement, a Benghazi-based lawyer named Abdel-Hafidh Ghoga held a news conference to refute his claims. Ghoga pronounced himself to be the spokesman of the new council, and denied that it resembled a transitional government, adding that even if it did, Abdel-Jalil would not be in charge. Ghoga derided the former justice minister as being more influential in the eastern Libyan city of Al Bayda than in Benghazi, which is the heart of the rebel movement.

The personality clash between Abdel-Jalil and Ghoga continued on for most of the next week, as each man portended to be running a council that spoke for the eastern rebel movement in its entirety. It was significant only insofar as it provided just a glimpse of the sort of internal rivalries that exist in eastern Libya, known historically as Cyrenaica. Though Cyrenaica has a distinct identity from the western Libyan region historically referred to as Tripolitania, that does not mean that it is completely unified. This will be a problem moving ahead for the coalition carrying out the bombing campaign of Libya, as tribal and personal rivalries in the east will compound with a simple lack of familiarity with who the rebels really are.

The TNC officially came into being March 6, and (for the moment, at least) has settled the personal and regional rivalry between Abdel-Jalil and Ghoga, with the former named the TNC head, and the latter its spokesman. Despite the drama that preceded the formal establishment of the council, all members of the opposition have always been unified on a series of goals: They want to mount an armed offensive against the government-controlled areas in the west; they want to overthrow Gadhafi; they seek to unify the country with Tripoli as its capital; and they do not want foreign boots on Libyan soil. The unity of the rebels, in short, is based upon a common desire to oust the longtime Libyan leader.

The TNC asserts that it derives its legitimacy from the series of city councils that have been running the affairs of the east since the February uprising that turned all of eastern Libya into rebel-held territory. This council is, in essence, a conglomeration of localized units of makeshift self-governance. And while it may be centered in the east, the TNC has also gone out of its way to assert that all Libyans who are opposed to Gadhafi’s rule are a part of the movement. This is not a secessionist struggle. A military stalemate with Gadhafi that would lead to the establishment of two Libya’s would not represent an outright success for the rebels, even though it would be preferential to outright defeat. Though it has only released the names of nine of its reported 31 members for security reasons, the TNC has claimed that it has members in several cities that lie beyond the rebel-held territory in the east (including Misurata, Zentan, Zawiya, Zouara, Nalut, Jabal Gharbi, Ghat and Kufra), and promised membership to all Libyans who want to join and asserted that the council is the sole representative of the whole of Libya.

The TNC’s foremost priorities for the past several weeks have been garnering foreign support for airstrikes on Gadhafi’s forces and the establishment of a no-fly zone. Absent that, they have long argued, none of their other military objectives stood a chance of being realized.

It was the lobbying for Western support in the establishment of a no-fly zone that led the TNC’s “executive team,” also known as the crisis committee, to go on a tour of European capitals in mid-March designed to shore up support from various governments and international institutions. Mahmoud Jebril, an ally of Abdel-Jalil, and de facto Foreign Minister Ali al-Essawi, the former Libyan ambassador to India who quit in February when the uprising began, comprise the executive team. The result of this trip was the first recognition of the TNC as the legitimate representative of the Libyan people, which was provided by France on March 10. France, as we were to see in the following days, was to become the most vociferous advocate of the international community coming to the aid of the TNC through the use of air strikes.

Challenges

Before the decision was made to implement a no fly zone, the Libyan opposition forces collapsed in the face of Ghaddafi’s onslaught, and have shown little sign of coalescing into a meaningful military force. While the loyalist eastward thrust was against a disorganized rebel force, Ghaddafi’s forces have demonstrated that they retain considerable strength and loyalty to the regime. That means that even with coalition airstrikes taking out armor and artillery, there will still be forces loyal to Ghaddafi inside any urban center the rebels might encounter in a westward advance, meaning that the rebels would be forced to fight a dedicated force dug in in built up areas while operating on extended lines, a difficult tactical and operational challenge for even a coherent and proficient military force. So the even though the coalition airstrikes have since shifted the military balance, the fundamental challenges for the rebels to organize and orchestrate a coherent military offensive remain unchanged.

It is important to note that little of the territory that fell into rebel control in the early days of the insurrection was not actually occupied through conquest. Many military and security forces in the east either deserted or defected to the opposition, which brought not only men and arms, but also the territory those troops ostensibly controlled. Most fighting that occurred once the situation transitioned into what is effectively a civil war, particularly in the main population centers along the coastal stretch between Benghazi and Sirte, consisted of relatively small, lightly armed formations conducting raids, rather than either side decisively defeating a major formation and pacifying a town.

Just as the executive team represents the TNC’s foreign affairs unit, the council also has a military division. This was originally headed by Omar El-Hariri, but the overall command of the Libyan rebels has since reportedly been passed to former interior minister Gen. Abdel Fattah Younis. Younis’ name arose early on as the man with whom the British government was engaging as it tried to get a grip on the situation unfolding in rebel-held territory. He was not included in the original TNC membership, however, despite several indications that he did in fact retain widespread support among eastern rebels. This, like the clash between Abdel-Jalil and Ghoga, was another indication of the rivalries that exist in eastern Libya, which paint a picture of disunity among the rebels.

Younis, however, now appears to have been officially incorporated into the command structure and is presiding over a TNC “army” that, like the TNC itself, is the sum of its parts. Every population center in eastern Libya has since the uprising began created respective militias, all of which are now, theoretically, to report to Benghazi. Indeed, the most notable of these local militias, created Feb. 28, has been known at times as the Benghazi Military Council, which is linked to the Benghazi city council, the members of which form much of the political core of the new national council. There are other known militias in eastern Libya, however, operating training camps in places like Ajdabiya, Al Bayda and Tobruk, and undoubtedly several other locations as well.

Younis has perhaps the most challenging job of all in eastern Libya: organizing a coherent fighting force that can mount an invasion of the west — something that will be difficult even after an extensive foreign bombing campaign. More defections by the military and security forces in the west, like the earlier defections in Zawiya and Misurata, would perhaps benefit the TNC even more than the bombing campaign under way. There is no sign that immanent defections from the west, however, which will only reinforce the military and geographic challenges the TNC is faced with.

Libyan society is by definition tribal and therefore prone to fractiousness. The Gadhafi era has done nothing to counter this historical legacy, as the Jamihiriya political system promoted local governance more than a truly national system of administration. Ironically, it was this legacy of Gadhafi’s regime that helped the individual eastern cities to rapidly establish local committees that took over administration of their respective areas, but it will create difficulties should they try to truly come together. Rhetoric is far different from tangible displays of unity.

Geography will also continue to be a challenge for the TNC. The Libyan opposition still does not have the basic military proficiencies or know-how to project and sustain an armored assault on Tripoli; if it tried, it would run a serious risk of being neutralized on arrival by prepared defenses. Even Gadhafi’s hometown of Sirte — almost certainly a necessary intermediate position to control on any drive to Tripoli — looks to be a logistical stretch for the opposition. An inflow of weapons may help but would not be the complete solution. Just as the primary factor in eastern Libya’s breaking free of the government’s control lay in a series of military defections, the occurrence of the same scenario in significant numbers in the west is what would give the newly created National Libyan Council its best chance of overthrowing Gadhafi.