January 5, 2006


It is 'showtime' for Syria - UK (BBC, 1/05/06)

The current international pressure on Syria is "entirely deserved" and it is now "showtime" for its president, UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw says.

He said a Syrian official's claims that President Assad had threatened Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri before his murder were "very serious indeed."

Mr Straw was speaking to the BBC as he started a visit to Lebanon, which has been dominated for decades by Syria. [...]

The "really serious questions" Syria faced included whether it would co-operate fully with the international community on the investigation into the Hariri assassination, "properly" recognise Lebanon as an independent state and end support for "terrorist" groups and complicity in terrorism.

"So this is showtime for the Syrian president and the regime there," Mr Straw said.

"The onus is now on the Syrian regime to match the expectations which were raised by President Bashar when he first took over from his father... and break away from this long legacy of failing to meet the requirements of international law and what appears to have been complicity in some very bad things that have happened in the Lebanon."

He urged the Syrian president to "start implementing fully UN resolutions" and co-operate with the Hariri probe straight away.

All Saddam was asked to do was comply with UN Resolutions. He found out what happens when you don't and the Anglosphere wants you to.

Unraveling Syria's Cover-Up (NY Times, 1/05/06)

Bashar al-Assad faces a moment of truth that he has worked hard to evade. The Syrian dictator has been asked to meet with a United Nations team investigating last February's truck-bomb murder of the former Lebanese prime minister, Rafik Hariri. If Mr. Assad stonewalls or refuses to meet with the team, even those Security Council members who have shielded Syria - like Russia, China and Algeria - will find it hard to claim that Damascus is cooperating enough to avoid imposing tough sanctions.

The Times will, of course, be on board right up until the genuine showtime.

Posted by Orrin Judd at January 5, 2006 9:23 AM

The NY Times article spent a significant amount of ink praising the great work of the UN in keeping the pressure on Assad and his thugs. And they push for continued "leadership" in this effort.

Of course that's mostly because the NY Times worships Kofi Annan's band of thieves and liars and would crawl through broken glass on their hands and knees in order to follow him right to the gates of Hell.

What the NY Times is really saying here is that they don't want the US (read Bush administration) to have a role in the toppling of Assad's dictatorship. Can't be having another democracy over there, can we?

Posted by: Michael at January 5, 2006 11:19 AM

People still read the NYT?

Posted by: Barry Meislin at January 5, 2006 11:29 AM

Michael, Barry;

Note the key escape clause at the end of the quoted section: "imposing tough sanctions". In the NYT world view, sanctions are fine as long as they don't have any effect.

Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at January 5, 2006 12:25 PM