President Obama’s “Pink Line” in Syria

You know you’re in trouble when you can’t even get your walk-back story straight. Stung by the worldwide derision that met President Obama’s fudging and fumbling of his chemical-weapons red line in Syria, the White House leaked to the New York Times that Obama’s initial statement had been unprepared, unscripted and therefore unserious.

The next day Jay Carney said precisely the opposite: “Red line” was intended and deliberate.

Above: Jay Carney

By Charles Krauthammer

Which is it? Who knows? Perhaps Obama used the term last August to look tough, sound like a real world leader, never expecting that Syria would do something so crazy. He would have it both ways: sound decisive but never have to deliver.

Or perhaps he thought that Syria might actually use chemical weapons one day, at which point he would think of something.

So far he’s thought of nothing. Instead he’s backed himself into a corner: Be forced into a war he is firmly resolved to avoid, or lose credibility, which for a superpower on whose word relies the safety of a dozen allies is not just embarrassing but dangerous.

In his recent rambling news conference, Obama said that he needed certainty about the crossing of the red line to keep the “international community” behind him. This is absurd. The “international community” is a fiction, especially in Syria. Russia, Iran and Hezbollah are calling the shots.

Nor, he averred, could he act until he could be sure of everything down to the “chain of custody” of the sarin gas.

What is this? “CSI: Damascus”? It’s a savage civil war. The antagonists don’t exactly stand down for forensic sampling.

Some countries have real red lines. Israel has no friends on either side of this regional Sunni-Shiite conflict, but it will not permit the alteration of its strategic military balance with Hezbollah, which is already brimming with 60,000 rockets aimed at Israel.

Everyone in the region knows that the transfer of chemical weapons to Hezbollah or the acquisition of the Fateh-110 missile, with the accuracy and range to hit the heart of Tel Aviv, is a red line. Hence the punishing Israeli airstrikes around Damascus on advanced weaponry making its way to Hezbollah.

The risk to Israel is less a counterattack from Damascus than from Hezbollah. Bashar al-Assad of Syria doesn’t need a new front with Israel. Syria remembers not just its thorough defeat at the hands of Israel in 1967 and 1973 but also its humiliation in the skies over the Bekaa Valley in 1982 when it challenged Israeli air dominance. In a two-day dogfight, Israel shot down 60 Syrian planes and lost none.

Israel’s real concern is a Hezbollah attack. But Hezbollah has already stretched itself thin by sending fighters into Syria to save Assad. And it knows that war with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would be far more devastating than its 2006 war with the tepid and tentative Ehud Olmert.

Most important, Iran, Hezbollah’s master, wants to keep Hezbollah’s missile arsenal intact and in reserve for retaliation against — and thus deterrence of — a possible Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear program.

These are complicated, inherently risky calculations. But living in the midst of this cauldron, Israel has no choice. It must act.

America does have a choice. It can afford to stay out. And at this late date, it probably will.

Early in the war, before the rise of the jihadists to dominance within the Syrian opposition, intervention might have brought down Assad and produced a decent successor government friendly to America and non-belligerent to its neighbors.

Today our only hope seems to be supporting and arming Salim Idriss, the one rebel commander who speaks in moderate, tolerant tones. But he could easily turn, or could be overwhelmed by the jihadists. As they say in the Middle East, you don’t buy allies here. It’s strictly a rental.

Israel’s successful strikes around Damascus show that a Western no-fly zone would not require a massive Libyan-style campaign to take out all Syrian air defenses. Syrian helicopters and planes could be grounded more simply with attacks on runways, depots and idle aircraft alone, carried out, if not by fighters, by cruise missiles and other standoff weaponry.

But even that may be too much for a president who has assured his country that the tide of war is receding. At this late date, supporting proxies may be the only reasonable option left. It’s perversely self-vindicating. Wait long enough, and all other options disappear. As do red lines.

Read more from Charles Krauthammer’s archive, follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his updates on Facebook.

Charles Krauthammer

Teenagers, Social Media, and Terrorism: A Threat Hard to Assess …. Plus: FBI May Be Recording All Phone Conversations

Are social networks like Mark Zuckerberg’s Facebook being used to assist terrorists?

By Mark Guarino | Christian Science Monitor

Authorities are leaning more toward zero tolerance of teenagers who fling around online threats about acts of violence or terrorism. As a result, what might have once merited a slap on the wrist may today result in criminal charges

The case of teenager Cameron Dambrosio might serve as an object lesson to young people everywhere about minding what you say online unless you are prepared to be arrested for terrorism.

The Methuen, Mass., high school student was arrested last week after posting online videos that show him rapping an original song that police say contained “disturbing verbiage” and reportedly mentioned the White House and the Boston Marathon bombing. He is charged with communicating terrorist threats, a state felony, and faces a potential 20 years in prison. Bail is set at $1 million.

Whether the arrest proves to be a victory in America‘s fight against domestic terrorism or whether Cameron made an unfortunate artistic choice in the aftermath of the Boston bombing will become clear as the wheels of justice advance. What is apparent now, however, is that law enforcement agencies are tightening their focus on the social media behavior of US teenagers – not just because young people often fit the profile of those who are vulnerable to radicalization, but also because the public appears to be more accepting of monitoring and surveillance aimed at preventing attacks, even at the risk of government overreach.

Dias Kadyrbayev, left, is seen with Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev at an unknown location in this undated picture found on Kadyrbayev’s VK page./ VK

VK (Originally VKontakte, Russian: ВКонтакте, literally “in contact”) is a social network service available in several languages but popular particularly among Russian-speaking users around the world

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VK_(social_network)

RECOMMENDED: Quiz: How much do you know about terrorism?

“When I was young, calling a bomb threat to your high school because you didn’t want to go to school that day was treated with a slap on the wrist. Try that nowadays and you’re going to prison, no question about it. They are taking it more seriously now,” says Rob D’Ovidio, a criminal justice professor at Drexel University in Philadelphia who specializes in high-tech crime.

Teenagers are generally blissfully unaware that law enforcement agencies are creating cyber units to track and investigate developing ways that criminals, or would-be criminals, research, socialize, and plot nefarious actions, from child molestation to domestic terrorism. The Boston Marathon bombing suspects, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, fit this profile: They [each??] maintained a YouTube page and Twitter feed that promoted the teachings of a radical Muslim cleric[both did? please confirm.] alongside innocuous postings about music and sports. For law enforcement officials, filtering what does and does not constitute a threat is a delicate balancing act that, since the April 15 bombing, may be tilting to the side of additional caution over individuals’ free speech.

“The danger of this in light of the tragedy in Boston is that law enforcement is being so risk-averse they are in danger of crossing that line and going after what courts would ultimately deem as free speech,” Mr. D’Ovidio says.

Want your top political issues explained? Get customized DC Decoder updates.

Three people were killed and at least 260 injured in the two bomb blasts near the Boston Marathon finish line on April 15. Since then, questions have been raised about how authorities missed signals, especially after alerts from Russian intelligence, that one of the bombing suspects had become radicalized. Tamerlan Tsarnaev, killed after a gunfight with police, had been under surveillance by Russia for six months when he traveled there in 2011 and 2012[those details correct??], besides his activity on social media.

“The bottom line is that the public wants to know, after the fact, why [an attack] was not stopped.… Most Americans are prepared to maintain a sophisticated watch on this without [government] overreach, but most Americans also feel if these things can be stopped before they begin, they want to see that happen,” says Michael Greenberger, a law professor at the University of Maryland Center for Health and Homeland Security.

Some authorities say that zooming in on unusual behavior online fits squarely with how police have conducted random searches on the street.

“The greatest mystery in life is the human mind. We don’t know what other people do until it becomes known. Our job is to figure it out, but we need indicators to know something’s not right,” says Sgt. Ed Mullins of the New York Police Department, who is also president of the Sergeants Benevolent Association, the city’s second-largest police union.

Using a zero tolerance approach to track domestic terrorists online is the only reasonable way to analyze online threats these days, especially after the Boston Marathon bombing and news that the suspects had subsequently planned to target Times Square in Manhattan, Mullins says. The way law enforcement agencies approach online activity that appears sinister is this: “If you’re not a terrorist, if you’re not a threat, prove it,” [he says?].

“This is the price you pay to live in free society right now. It’s just the way it is,” Mullins adds.

That method can result in arrests of teenagers whose online activity may be more aptly characterized as stupid pranks.

In February, Jessica Winslow and Ti’jeanae Harris, two high school girls in Rapids Parish, La., were arrested and charged with 10 counts of terrorism each after they allegedly e-mailed threats to students and faculty “to see if they could get away with it,” detectives told a local television news station. “We take every threat in our schools as a credible threat, and I am happy to say we have made these arrests,” Sheriff William Earl Hilton told reporters.

In January, Alex David Rosario, a high school student in Armada Village, Mich., was charged with domestic terrorism after he allegedly threatened to shoot fellow employees at the Subway shop where he worked. He [told police???] it was a joke. “We feel threatening to kill somebody is not a joke. It doesn’t appear the prosecutor takes it as a joke either and the judge certainly doesn’t,” said Armada Police Chief Howard Smith.

Then there is the case of Abdella Ahmad Tounisi, a Chicago-area teenager arrested last year after trying to join, over the Internet, a Syrian militant group linked to Al Qaeda. Last week, a federal judge allowed Mr. Tounisi home confinement while awaiting trial. He is pleading guilty to his single charge of attempting to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization.[if he's pleading guilty, why is there a trial?][also, any of the other cases resolved yet?]

Militant and hate groups are known to use the Internet to lure teenagers “to gain their sympathy” through video games, music, or rhetoric that plays to themes of alienation, D’Ovidio says. Connecting with terrorists would have been impossible in the past, but today, as is alleged in the Tounisi case, anyone with a grudge or curiosity, or both, and an Internet connection can open that dialogue. Foolishly, the teens perceive that they are operating anonymously and within a safe environment, D’Ovidio says.

“We know these groups are catering and looking for these individuals,” he says. “They create the right environment for experimentation for kids who may have a proclivity of being disgruntled toward the US government.”

Easy access to online media, plus the urge to rebel, is a combustible mix that should make parents vigilant, cautions Stephen Balkam, chief executive officer of the Family Online Safety Institute, a nonprofit advocacy group in Washington that wants teenagers to be better informed about the outcomes of what they post, tweet, or upload online.

“Every generation of teenagers has figured out a way of rebelling against their parents, or giving it back to ‘the man.’ What I think is unprecedented is the very ‘man’ and the system they want to rebel against can track them and find their digital footprints online,” Mr. Balkam says. “In a sense, it’s good that we can catch kids who are getting radicalized sooner than later, but by the same token, it’s a challenge for kids to grow and develop, which is their job as a teenager, if they are being scrutinized too much.”

*************************************

FBI May Be Recording All Phone Conversations

From the Daily Mail

A former FBI counterterrorism agent has  hinted at a vast and intrusive surveillance network used by the U.S. government  to monitor its own citizens.

Tim Clemente admitted as much when he  appeared on CNN Wednesday night.

Discussing the Boston Marathon attack and  past telephone conversations of Katherine Russell and her now deceased husband,  suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev, Clemente said that those conversations would be  available to investigators.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2319789/ALL-phone-calls-US-recorded-accessible-government-claims-FBI-agent.html#ixzz2SRYyhZDe Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

.

A former FBI agent admitted that U.S. citizens are under  constant surveillance and that all communications are recorded

Clemente discussed the issue in this exchange  with host Erin Burnett, as recorded by the CNN transcript.

BURNETT: ‘ Tim, is there any way, obviously,  there is a voice mail they can try to get the phone companies to give that up at  this point. It’s not a voice mail. It’s just a conversation. There’s no way they  actually can find  out what happened, right, unless she tells them?’

CLEMENTE: ‘No, there is a way. We certainly have ways in national  security investigations to find out exactly what was said in that  conversation. It’s not  necessarily something that the FBI is going to want  to present in court, but it may help lead the investigation and/or lead to  questioning of  her. We certainly can find that out.’

BURNETT: ‘So they can actually get that? People are saying, look, that is  incredible.’

CLEMENTE: ‘No, welcome to America. All of that stuff is being captured as  we speak whether we know it or like it or not.

Secretive agencies are likely recording all digital  communications, from phone calls to emails to chat records

He reiterated those statements again on CNN  on Thursday night, adding that ‘all digital communications in the past’ are  recorded and saved.

He stressed that no digital communication was  secure.

More…

• EXCLUSIVE:  National Rifle Association president scolds Obama for blaming Mexican violence  on American guns: ‘The fact of the matter is, he knows better’
• ‘These  allegations are completely false and are made by two men who until yesterday I  regarded as friends’: Deputy Speaker denies gay rape claims after he was  released on bail

 

The Guardian noted that such practices have  been hinted at before, such as when AT&T engineer Mark Klein revealed that  the company had helped build a special network for the National Security Agency  to have total access to all data about telephone calls.

And Democratic Senators Ron Wyden and Mark  Udall have said for years that the public would be ‘stunned’ to learn the  lengths its government went to  monitor them.

 

 

In a poll, some Americans felt that they were losing  civil liberties in the war on terrorism

The Total Information Awareness program has  been slowly instituted in the years following the 9/11 terrorist attacks with  little controversy.

However the actual government practices have  been kept secret.

Some new polls suggest that Americans have  become increasingly concerned that they are giving up civil liberties to the war  on terrorism.

Read more:

• Are all telephone calls recorded and accessible  to the US government?

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2319789/ALL-phone-calls-US-recorded-accessible-government-claims-FBI-agent.html#ixzz2SRZ6Owow Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

A wary, weary West is leaving Syria in the butchers’ hands

 

By Benedict Brogan World Last updated:  April 29th, 2013

106 Comments Comment on this article

From Tuesday’s Daily Telegraph

It is Syria’s misfortune that its torment at the hands of Bashar al-Assad and his murderous cronies had to come after the West’s ordeals in Iraq and Afghanistan, and in the wake of a global financial crisis that has left accountants in charge of foreign policy. Wearied and broke, we have no appetite for another military adventure.

Our impotence in the face of daily horrors from Damascus, Homs, Deraa, Aleppo and countless other places martyred in the savagery of this civil war is obvious to the world. The interventionist idealism Tony Blair mapped out in Chicago more than a decade ago never recovered from its humiliations in Basra and Helmand. Now we are reduced to wringing our hands on the sidelines, incapable even of addressing the war’s humanitarian consequences. Images claiming to depict the victims of a chemical attack on civilians by the regime’s forces have provoked lamentations of despair and little else. Barack Obama said last year that the use of such weapons was the red line that, once crossed, would change everything. So far, it hasn’t.

In Europe, the very word “gas” plays on our collective memory. We stiffen at its mention, our subconscious prompting our revulsion. As a child, my favourite relative was my mother’s uncle. He kept a revolver in his bedside table, and a German bayonet that for years served to dispatch the rabbits in the hutch at the bottom of the garden for Sunday lunch. (It now sits on my desk alongside his medals.) Another souvenir of Verdun he never got rid of was the effects of the gas.

We knew to keep his inhaler and pills within reach as he tried to convey to us the terror, the suffocating horror and foaming mouths. “No one will ever understand,” he would say. A century after the trenches, Europe remains conditioned to react differently to a way of killing that is arguably no more grisly than dropping barrels of high explosive from helicopters, or slitting children’s throats.

In this conflict, such barbarity is a commonplace. I had an email recently from a young Syrian interpreter I worked with in Lebanon earlier this year, who described his luck at escaping the clutches of Assad’s secret police without being tortured. “They took all my stuff and then they tied my hands behind my back with my eyes blindfolded,” he said. “They made me stand facing the wall for a very long time (four or five hours maybe). And they started torturing someone behind me, they started whipping him, hitting him, shouting and threatening him that he will be killed in a very painful way if he didn’t give them the information they need… They used electricity shocks on him. Of course I couldn’t see anything, but what I’ve heard was enough to destroy me and make me lose any hope I had.” Some luck.

If we are to judge by such accounts, and thousands of others, then Syria crossed into the unspeakable long before sarin was allegedly used near Aleppo. Yet it still seemed to matter when Mr Obama laid out his red line last August, stating that the use of such weapons would draw the strongest possible response.

A month ago, in a long meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu, the president was presented with Israeli evidence that Syrian forces had done precisely that. He stayed quiet, and talked of responding “prudently”. This prompted Israel to go public. Since then the CIA has endorsed the conclusions of MI6 and other intelligence agencies that chemical weapons probably were used. Quite how, and by whom, remains a point of argument. Whether Assad himself ordered their deployment, or whether they were being tested in improvised form by a local commander, is unclear.

This debate, though, is academic. The Syrian president has never made a secret of his belief that use of such weapons is legitimate. I know this because he told me so, when I interviewed him for this newspaper early in 2004. It was the height of attempts to bring him in from the cold, although even then there were plenty of clues that he wouldn’t play ball (I can still see the look on Tony Blair’s face at a memorable press conference in Damascus when Assad humiliated him by departing from the script to praise Palestinian suicide bombers as worthy successors to the French Resistance).

“It is natural for us to look for means to defend ourselves,” he told me then, before going on to promise a Blair-style “big conversation” with the Syrian people about democracy. His father’s notoriety as the butcher of Hama, where tens of thousands were massacred in 1982, might have taught us to suspect that the son would one day use those weapons to protect himself from his own people – and that their “conversation” would be a civil war of exceptional brutality.

The disaster of Syria is spreading far and wide. Refugees are pouring into surrounding countries, bringing with them misery and instability. Jordan is on the brink of collapse as a state: a monarchy whose ethnic base is already outnumbered by Palestinian immigrants finds itself unable to cope with more than a million new arrivals. Lebanon, scarcely stable in any event, is fracturing under the strain of a similar influx, which will soon be equal to a quarter of its population. Iraq’s Shia government, terrified that Syria’s Sunni insurgents will first seize control of the country, and then link up with their co-religionists across the border, is said to be offering discreet help to Assad.

As Syria and its neighbours fall apart as functioning states, it is not hard to imagine a final sectarian reckoning between Shia and Sunni that will make us nostalgic for the easy certainties of the Israeli-Palestinian wars. If Iraq at its worst was a magnet for all the hatreds of the region, Syria is a black hole.

In this catastrophe, Britain is a marginal participant at best. The Government has shown no appetite for any kind of involvement. The consequences of austerity mean we do not have the resources to contemplate action, even if the United States were to surprise us by deciding to intervene. At most, we might agree to join special forces missions to secure Assad’s chemical weapons. But we cannot afford anything more – and even if we could, our experience of well-intentioned excursions into Muslim countries has put us off the idea. We are wary, and weary.

Unlike Libya, Syria does not lend itself to a few air attacks from the sea, and home in time for tea. The best ministers can do is to lobby Turkey, the only credible power in the region (and itself coping with a mass influx of refugees), to coordinate a regional no-fly zone with Qatar and Saudi Arabia, in order to ground the MiGs and helicopter gunships that Assad is using to wreak so much destruction. Even then, they will have to get past Russian intransigence, which continues to baffle diplomats. Moscow has been guaranteed the retention of its naval and intelligence bases on the Syrian coast, yet it continues to block any international measures against Assad, and to keep him supplied militarily, even while admitting it has no desire to see him remain in power. Perhaps the thought of those chemical weapons finding their way from a collapsed Syria into the Caucasus and on to his doorstep might make Vladimir Putin amenable to a deal.

The financial crisis has taught us the limits of what we can do at home. Syria reminds us that we are diminished in our ambitions abroad, too. It doesn’t matter where we put the red lines: the terrible truth is that we are more powerless than we dare to admit.

Read more by Benedict Brogan on Telegraph Blogs Follow Telegraph Blogs on Twitter

 

Syrian prime minister survives bombing — six others killed

People stand near debris and a damaged vehicle after an explosion at al-Mezze neighbourhood in Damascus April 29, 2013, in this handout photograph distributed by Syria’s national news agency SANA.

Credit: Reuters/SANA/Handout

By Dominic Evans

BEIRUT (Reuters) – Syria’s prime minister survived a bomb attack on his convoy in Damascus on Monday, as rebels struck in the heart of President Bashar al-Assad’s capital.

Six people were killed in the blast, the British-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said. Previous rebel attacks on government targets included a December bombing which wounded Assad’s interior minister.

As prime minister, Wael al-Halki wields little power but the attack highlighted the rebels’ growing ability to target symbols of Assad’s authority in a civil war that, according to the United Nations, has cost more than 70,000 lives.

Syrian Prime Minister  Wael al-Halki

Assad picked Halki in August to replace Riyadh Hijab, who defected and escaped to neighboring Jordan just weeks after a bombing killed four of the president’s top security advisers.

Monday’s blast shook the Mezze district soon after 9 a.m. (2:00 a.m. EDT), sending thick black smoke into the sky. The Observatory said one man accompanying Halki was killed as well as five passers-by.

State television showed firemen hosing down the charred and mangled remains of a car. Close by was a large white bus, its windows blown out and its seats gutted by fire. Glass and debris were scattered across several lanes of a main road.

“The terrorist explosion in Mezze was an attempt to target the convoy of the prime minister. Dr Wael al-Halki is well and not hurt at all,” state television said.

It later broadcast footage of Halki, who appeared composed and unruffled, chairing what it said was an economic committee.

In comments released by the state news agency SANA but not shown on television, Halki was quoted as condemning the attack as a sign of “bankruptcy and failure of the terrorist groups”, a reference to the rebels battling to overthrow Assad.

Mezze is part of a shrinking “Square of Security” in central Damascus, where many government and military institutions are based and where senior officials live.

Sheltered for nearly two years from the destruction ravaging much of the rest of Syria, it has been sucked into violence as rebel forces based to the east of the capital launch mortar attacks and carry out bombings in the center.

CHEMICAL WEAPONS

Assad has lost control of large areas of northern and eastern Syria, faces a growing challenge in the southern province of Deraa, and is battling rebels in many cities.

But his forces have been waging powerful ground offensives, backed by artillery and air strikes, against rebel-held territory around the capital and near the central city of Homs which links Damascus to the heartland of Assad’s minority Alawite sect in the mountains overlooking the Mediterranean.

As part of that counter-offensive, Assad’s forces probably used chemical weapons, the United States and Britain have said.

However the trans-Atlantic allies, whose 2003 invasion of Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein was based in part on flawed intelligence about an Iraqi program of weapons of mass destruction, have been cautious in their accusations.

Despite congressional pressure on Barack Obama to do more to help the rebels, the U.S. president has made clear he is in no rush to intervene on the basis of evidence he said was preliminary.

Britain, which says there is limited but growing evidence of chemical weapons use, said it wanted a United Nations investigation to see “whether or not there is verified use of chemical weapons”.

“We’ve been very clear that, should that be the case, then the repercussions would be serious,” British Foreign Office Minister Alistair Burt said during a visit to Beirut.

“That is why it is so important to have this independently verified and for the U.N. to do their investigation”.

A U.N. team of experts has been waiting to travel to Syria to gather field evidence, but has yet to win agreement from Syrian authorities who want it to investigate only government accusations of chemical weapon use by rebels in Aleppo province.

Russia, which has criticized Western and Gulf Arab support for the anti-Assad fighters, said that attempts by Western countries to expand the U.N. inquiry to cover rebel accusations of Syrian government use of chemicals in Homs and Damascus mounted to a pretext to intervene in the civil war.

“There is not always a basis for the allegations (of the use of chemical weapons),” Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told a news conference.

“There are probably governments and a number of external players who believe that it is fine to use any means to overthrow the Syrian regime. But the theme of the use of weapons of mass destruction is too serious and we shouldn’t joke about it. To take advantage of it (to advance) geopolitical goals is not acceptable.”

The United Nations said in February that around 70,000 people had been killed in Syria’s conflict. Since then activists have reported daily death tolls of between 100 and 200.

Five million people have fled their homes, including 1.4 million refugees in nearby countries, and financial losses are estimated at many tens of billions of dollars.

The Beirut-based U.N. Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia estimates that 400,000 houses have been completely destroyed, 300,000 partially destroyed and a further half million have suffered some kind of structural damage.

(Additional reporting by Thomas Grove in Moscow; Editing by Alistair Lyon and Robin Pomeroy)

Syria’s Assad a No Show At Arab League: The Opposition Gets His Chair

The Syrian opposition flag is seen in front of the seat of the Syrian delegation at the opening the Arab League summit in Doha March 26, 2013. REUTERS/Ahmed Jadallah

By Sami Aboudi and Yara Bayoumy

(Reuters) – To applause from Arab heads of state, a foe of Bashar al-Assad took Syria’s vacant seat at an Arab summit on Tuesday, deepening the Syrian president’s diplomatic isolation and diverting attention from opposition rifts.

Speaking at an annual gathering of Arab heads of state in the Gulf state of Qatar, Moaz Alkhatib said he had asked U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry for U.S. forces to help defend rebel-controlled northern parts of Syria with Patriot surface-to-air missiles. NATO swiftly rebuffed the idea.

The insurgents have few weapons to counter Assad’s helicopter gunships and warplanes.

“It was a historic meeting. You could feel the grandiose nature of the meeting,” said opposition spokesman Yaser Tabbara.

“It’s a first step towards acquiring full legal legitimacy.”

Alkhatib said the United States should play a bigger role in helping end the two-year-old conflict in Syria, blaming Assad’s government for what he called its refusal to solve the crisis.

“I have asked Mr Kerry to extend the umbrella of the Patriot missiles to cover the Syrian north and he promised to study the subject,” Alkhatib said, referring to NATO Patriot missile batteries sent to Turkey last year to protect Turkish airspace.

“We are still waiting for a decision from NATO to protect people’s lives, not to fight but to protect lives,” he said.

Responding to Alkhatib’s remarks, an official of the Western military alliance at its headquarters in Brussels said: “NATO has no intention to intervene militarily in Syria.

“NATO calls for an end to violence in Syria, which represents a serious threat to stability and security in the region. We fully support the efforts of the international community to find a peaceful solution,” the official said.

Michael Stephens, a researcher based in Qatar for Britain’s Royal United Services Institute, said acceding to Alkhatib’s request would effectively put NATO at war with Damascus.

DEFENSIVE DEPLOYMENT

NATO’s current deployment of three Patriot missile batteries, in eastern Turkey, is intended to be purely defensive, shielding Turkey from possible attack from Syria. The Patriots are designed to shoot down hostile missiles in mid-air., a Sunni Muslim cleric, took Syria’s chair at the summit for the first time despite announcing on Sunday that he would step down as leader of the Syrian National Coalition.

The emir of Qatar, a strong supporter of the struggle to topple Assad, asked his fellow-Arab leaders to invite the coalition delegation to represent Syria formally at the summit, despite the internal divisions plaguing the opposition.

The Arab League suspended Syria in November 2011 in protest at its use of violence against civilians to quell dissent.

In his opening speech, Qatar’s Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani urged the U.N. Security Council to stop the “oppression and repression of the people” in Syria, halt the bloodshed and “present those responsible for these crimes against their people to international justice”.

The United Nations says about 70,000 people have been killed in a conflict that began with peaceful anti-Assad protests and turned into an increasingly sectarian armed insurrection.

The war in Syria has divided world powers, paralyzing action at the Security Council. The Arab world is also split, with Saudi Arabia and Qatar the most fervent foes of Assad, and Iraq, Algeria and Lebanon the most resistant to calls for his removal.

Syrian rebels again fired mortar rounds into central Damascus on Tuesday. State television said several people had been wounded by “terrorist” mortar bombs that landed in the Syrian Arab News Agency SANA compound in the Baramkeh district.

The attack followed a similar flurry of rebel mortar bombs that struck near the Opera House on Ummayad Square in the heart of Damascus, killing two people on Monday.

Syrian state TV did not cover the Arab League meeting in Qatar, airing a program on makeup for women instead.

INTERNAL DISARRAY

Alkhatib’s decision to quit, which he blamed on the world’s failure to back the armed revolt against Assad also appeared to be motivated by internal disputes in the alliance. It undermined the alliance’s claim to provide a coherent alternative to Assad.

Liberals saw it as a protest against what they view as the rising influence of hardline Islamists in the Qatari-backed umbrella group set up in Doha in November to replace the ineffectual Syrian National Council.

Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood, criticized for its grip on the Syrian National Council, appears to be wield as much sway on its successor coalition, which has won wide international backing, but has failed to shake an image as consisting mostly of foreign-backed exiles immersed in political infighting.

Jane Kinninmont, of Britain’s Chatham House think tank, said Qatar and the other Gulf states had been frustrated that the United States in particular and also European powers had not done more to help the Syrian opposition.

“The Gulf countries contrast this to the Iraq war which many of them were quite dubious about, and they see a U.S. that’s far less interventionist today, even though there’s a much greater case for an immediate humanitarian need than there was in the case of Iraq.”

(Additional reporting by Mirna Sleiman and William Maclean, Omar Fahmy in Cairo, Oliver Holmes and Erika Solomon in Beirut and Adrian Croft in Brussels; Writing by Alistair Lyon)

Opposition to Assad In Syria Meets With Russia, Lavrov

Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei LavrovPhoto by Reuters

 

From Reuters

The head of the Syrian opposition Moaz Alkhatib told Reuters he had met Russia’s foreign minister on Saturday on the sidelines of a conference in Munich and had been invited to visit Moscow.

Syrian Coalition officials said on Friday that Alkhatib was set to meet U.S. Vice President Joe Biden, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, United Nations envoy Lakhdar Brahimi at the conference on Saturday.

On Saturday, a diplomatic source told Reuters that Alkhatib will also meet Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi on the sidelines of the conference. “The talks about Syria are intensifying and the Iranians have been drawn in. Let’s see how it all ends,” the source said.

After his meeting with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, Alkhatib, president of the Syrian National Coalition, said he had received a “clear invitation” from the foreign minister to visit Moscow, a breakthrough in relations that could help pave the way for a solution to the Syrian crisis.

“Russia has a certain vision but we welcome negotiations to alleviate the crisis and there are lots of details that need to be discussed,” Alkhatib said after the talks.

Also on Saturday, Lavrov said that Syria’s chemical weapons are safe in the regime’s hands, and reiterated Moscow’s support for Syrian President Bashar Assad’s nearly two-year-old battle against opposition forces.

“The greatest danger is the possibility that the chemical weapons will fall into the rebels’ hands,” Lavrov said while attending the Munich Security Conference in Germany.

While the weapons remained under government control, “we are confident that there is no cause for serious concern,” he said.

Lavrov also cautioned that “we should avoid a forceful intervention, especially without a mandate from the UN Security Council” and spoke out against “arbitrary sanctions” on Damascus.

On the sidelines of the international conference, Lavrov also met with U.S. Vice President Joe Biden, who on Saturday described Assad as a “tyrant” and that he must go.

Western powers have previously warned Assad that there would be an immediate reaction to any use of chemical weapons against the opposition, which have been fighting to oust the Syrian leader since March 2011. The UN estimates more than 60,000 people have been killed in the fighting.

Inside Syria, rebels claimed 40 people were killed across the country on Saturday, while activists said heavy clashes raged near a major military base in Mezze – a key supply link for the regime forces in the capital.

Rami Abdel Rahman, head of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, told dpa rebels and troops were also clashing near the Damascus suburb of Daraya. Daraya is now under rebel control, but Syrian forces have reportedly brought in tanks in an effort to reclaim it.

News from Syria cannot be verified because most journalists are still banned from entering restive areas across the country.

Pope calls for end to Syria slaughter

PHOTO: Pope Benedict has repeatedly called for a ceasefire in Syria. (Reuters: Giampiero Sposito) He renewed his prayers and pleas today.

Pope Benedict XVI has urged the international community to end to the “endless slaughter” in Syria before the entire country becomes a “a field of ruins.”

He made the appeal during a yearly “state of the world” address to diplomats accredited to the Vatican on Monday.

“I think first and foremost of Syria, torn apart by endless slaughter and the scene of dreadful suffering among its civilian population,” he said.

He called for an end to the conflict, which he said “will know no victors but only vanquished if it continues, leaving behind it nothing but a field of ruins”.

The Pope urged the diplomats from nearly 180 countries and world organisations to push their governments to do everything possible to face “this grave humanitarian situation”.

“Civil and political authorities before all others have a grave responsibility to work for peace,” he told the envoys gathered in the Sala Regia of the Vatican’s Apostolic Palace.

“They are the first called to resolve the numerous conflicts causing bloodshed in our human family, beginning with that privileged region in God’s plan, the Middle East.”

The Pope spoke a day after Syrian president Bashar al-Assad rejected peace talks with his enemies in a defiant speech that his opponents described as a renewed declaration of war.

Pope Benedict has repeatedly called for a ceasefire in Syria.

He used his Christmas message to call for an end to the bloodshed in the country, saying its people have been “deeply wounded and divided by a conflict which does not spare even the defenceless and reaps innocent victims”.

The United Nations estimates 60,000 people have been killed in the 21-month uprising against Mr Assad’s regime.

Reuters/AFP

State Department made “grievous mistake” over Benghazi: Senate report

 

In the September 11, 2012 terror attack on the U.S. in Benghazi, Libya, Ambassador Chis Stevens (right, above) was killed, along with State Department staffer Sean Smith and  former Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods.

By Tabassum Zakaria and Mark Hosenball | Reuters

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The State Department made a “grievous mistake” in keeping the U.S. mission in Benghazi open despite inadequate security and increasingly alarming threat assessments in the weeks before a deadly attack by militants, a Senate committee said on Monday.

A report from the Senate Homeland Security Committee on the September 11 attacks on the U.S. mission and a nearby CIA annex, in which the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans died, faulted intelligence agencies for not focusing tightly enough on Libyan extremists.

It also faulted the State Department for waiting for specific warnings instead of improving security.

The committee’s assessment, “Flashing Red: A Special Report On The Terrorist Attack At Benghazi,” follows a scathing report by an independent State Department accountability review board that resulted in a top security official resigning and three others at the department being relieved of their duties.

Joseph Lieberman, an independent senator who chairs the committee, said that in thousands of documents it reviewed, there was no indication that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had personally denied a request for extra funding or security for the Benghazi mission. He said key decisions were made by “midlevel managers” who have since been held accountable.

Republican Senator Susan Collins said it was likely that others needed to be held accountable, but that decision was best made by the Secretary of State, who has the best understanding “of how far up the chain of command the request for additional security went.”

The attacks and the death of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens put diplomatic security practices at posts in risky areas under scrutiny and raised questions about whether intelligence on militant activity in the region was adequate.

The Senate report said the lack of specific intelligence of an imminent threat in Benghazi “may reflect a failure” by intelligence agencies to focus closely enough on militant groups with weak or no operational ties to al Qaeda and its affiliates.

“With Osama bin Laden dead and core al Qaeda weakened, a new collection of violent Islamist extremist organizations and cells have emerged in the last two to three years,” the report said. That trend has been seen in the “Arab Spring” countries undergoing political transition or military conflict, it said.

NEED FOR BETTER INTELLIGENCE

The report recommended that U.S. intelligence agencies “broaden and deepen their focus in Libya and beyond, on nascent violent Islamist extremist groups in the region that lack strong operational ties to core al Qaeda or its main affiliate groups.”

Neither the Senate report nor the unclassified accountability review board report pinned blame for the Benghazi attack on a specific militant group. The FBI is investigating who was behind the assaults.

President Barack Obama, in an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday, said the United States had “very good leads” about who carried out the attacks. He did not provide details.

The Senate committee said the State Department should not have waited for specific warnings before acting on improving security in Benghazi.

It also said it was widely known that the post-revolution Libyan government was “incapable of performing its duty to protect U.S. diplomatic facilities and personnel,” but the State Department failed to fill the security gap.

From left: Glen Doherty, Tyrone Woods and Sean Smith died in the recent attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Libya

“Despite the inability of the Libyan government to fulfill its duties to secure the facility, the increasingly dangerous threat assessments, and a particularly vulnerable facility, the Department of State officials did not conclude the facility in Benghazi should be closed or temporarily shut down,” the report said. “That was a grievous mistake.”

The Senate panel reviewed changing comments made by the Obama administration after the attack, which led to a political firestorm in the run-up to the November presidential election and resulted in U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice withdrawing her name from consideration to replace Clinton, who is stepping down early next year.

Rice had said her initial comments that the attack grew out of a spontaneous protest over an anti-Islam film were based on talking points provided by intelligence agencies.

Lieberman said it was not the job of intelligence agencies to formulate unclassified talking points and they should decline such requests in the future.

Above: Just a few days after the Tuesday, September 11, 2012 attack at Benghazi, on Sunday, September 16, 2012, Susan Rice went on all five major Sunday TV News talk shows and used talking points that minimized the known  terrorist threat and involvement in the attack that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others.

The report said the original talking points included a line saying “we know” that individuals associated with al Qaeda or its affiliates participated in the attacks. But the final version had been changed to say: “There are indications that extremists participated,” and the reference to al Qaeda and its affiliates was deleted.

The report said that while James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, had offered to provide the committee with a detailed chronology of how the talking points were written and evolved, this had still not been delivered to Capitol Hill because the administration had spent weeks “debating internally” whether or not it should turn over information considered “deliberative” to Congress.

(Editing by Warren Strobel and David Brunnstrom)

The U.S. Consulate in Benghazi is seen in flames during a protest by an armed group said to have been protesting a film being produced in the United States September 11, 2012. REUTERS/Esam Al-Fetori

Murder of American is Benghazi: Low Point in American History

Almost Four Months After the Attack on the U.S. at Benghazi, Libya, Has President Obama Lived Up To His Words?

Netanyahu: Israel’s long arm will strike those threatening it

At ceremony for new Air Force pilots, Netanyahu sends message to Assad that Israel is carefully monitoring developments in Syria, tells news cadets that they have become a part of “Israel’s long arm.”

PHOTO: POOL / HAIM ZACH

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu reiterated Thursday that Israel was carefully following the developments in Syria, and will do everything necessary to fend off any potential threats from the north.

Netanyahu’s comments came at a ceremony for new Air Force cadets at the Hatzerim air base in the Negev.

By HERB KEINON
Jerusalem Post

“Everyone sees what is happening in Syria,” he said. “The Syrian air force hits hundreds of Syrian civilians and doesn’t resist using any means. Israel is following the developments in Syria and will do everything against that – or any – threat.”

Netanyahu told the cadets that they have now become a part of “Israel’s long arm.”

“We have strengthened many muscles and tendons in that arm,” the prime minister said. “Israel’s hand is extended in peace to those who want peace, and those who threaten us should know that our long arm will strike forcefully to defend the state of Israel.”

Meanwhile in Moscow, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told a senior Syrian diplomat that the crisis in Syria must be resolved through dialogue rather than force, the Russian Foreign Ministry said.

Meeting Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Makdad, Lavrov underscored “the lack of an alternative to a peaceful resolution of (Syria’s) internal conflict through a broad inter-Syria dialogue and political process,” a ministry statement said.

Reuters contributed to this report

Almost Four Months After the Attack on the U.S. at Benghazi, Libya, Has President Obama Lived Up To His Words?

Just two weeks after the September 11, 2012 terror attack on the U.S. Consulate at Benghazi, Libya, the attack that killed Ambasador Chris Stevens, State Department Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith and former Navy SEALs Glen Dohertyand  Tyrone Woods ; President Barack Obama gave the address below to the United Nations General Assembly in New York.

September 25, 2012

United Nations Headquarters
New York, New York

10:22 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT:  Mr. President, Mr. Secretary General, fellow delegates, ladies and gentleman:  I would like to begin today by telling you about an American named Chris Stevens.

Chris was born in a town called Grass Valley, California, the son of a lawyer and a musician.  As a young man, Chris joined the Peace Corps, and taught English in Morocco.  And he came to love and respect the people of North Africa and the Middle East. He would carry that commitment throughout his life.  As a diplomat, he worked from Egypt to Syria, from Saudi Arabia to Libya.  He was known for walking the streets of the cities where he worked — tasting the local food, meeting as many people as he could, speaking Arabic, listening with a broad smile.

Chris went to Benghazi in the early days of the Libyan revolution, arriving on a cargo ship.  As America’s representative, he helped the Libyan people as they coped with violent conflict, cared for the wounded, and crafted a vision for the future in which the rights of all Libyans would be respected. And after the revolution, he supported the birth of a new democracy, as Libyans held elections, and built new institutions, and began to move forward after decades of dictatorship.

Chris Stevens loved his work.  He took pride in the country he served, and he saw dignity in the people that he met.  And two weeks ago, he traveled to Benghazi to review plans to establish a new cultural center and modernize a hospital.  That’s when America’s compound came under attack.  Along with three of his colleagues, Chris was killed in the city that he helped to save. He was 52 years old.

I tell you this story because Chris Stevens embodied the best of America.  Like his fellow Foreign Service officers, he built bridges across oceans and cultures, and was deeply invested in the international cooperation that the United Nations represents.  He acted with humility, but he also stood up for a set of principles — a belief that individuals should be free to determine their own destiny, and live with liberty, dignity, justice, and opportunity.

The attacks on the civilians in Benghazi were attacks on America.  We are grateful for the assistance we received from the Libyan government and from the Libyan people.  There should be no doubt that we will be relentless in tracking down the killers and bringing them to justice.  And I also appreciate that in recent days, the leaders of other countries in the region — including Egypt, Tunisia and Yemen — have taken steps to secure our diplomatic facilities, and called for calm.  And so have religious authorities around the globe.

But understand, the attacks of the last two weeks are not simply an assault on America.  They are also an assault on the very ideals upon which the United Nations was founded — the notion that people can resolve their differences peacefully; that diplomacy can take the place of war; that in an interdependent world, all of us have a stake in working towards greater opportunity and security for our citizens.

In the September 11, 2012 terror attack on the U.S. in Benghazi, Libya, Ambassador Chis Stevens (right, above) was killed, along with State Department staffer Sean Smith and  former Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods.

If we are serious about upholding these ideals, it will not be enough to put more guards in front of an embassy, or to put out statements of regret and wait for the outrage to pass.  If we are serious about these ideals, we must speak honestly about the deeper causes of the crisis — because we face a choice between the forces that would drive us apart and the hopes that we hold in common.

Today, we must reaffirm that our future will be determined by people like Chris Stevens — and not by his killers.  Today, we must declare that this violence and intolerance has no place among our United Nations.

It has been less than two years since a vendor in Tunisia set himself on fire to protest the oppressive corruption in his country, and sparked what became known as the Arab Spring.  And since then, the world has been captivated by the transformation that’s taken place, and the United States has supported the forces of change.

From left: Glen Doherty, Tyrone Woods and Sean Smith died in the recent attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Libya

We were inspired by the Tunisian protests that toppled a dictator, because we recognized our own beliefs in the aspiration of men and women who took to the streets.

We insisted on change in Egypt, because our support for democracy ultimately put us on the side of the people.

We supported a transition of leadership in Yemen, because the interests of the people were no longer being served by a corrupt status quo.

We intervened in Libya alongside a broad coalition, and with the mandate of the United Nations Security Council, because we had the ability to stop the slaughter of innocents, and because we believed that the aspirations of the people were more powerful than a tyrant.

And as we meet here, we again declare that the regime of Bashar al-Assad must come to an end so that the suffering of the Syrian people can stop and a new dawn can begin.

We have taken these positions because we believe that freedom and self-determination are not unique to one culture.  These are not simply American values or Western values — they are universal values.  And even as there will be huge challenges to come with a transition to democracy, I am convinced that ultimately government of the people, by the people, and for the people is more likely to bring about the stability, prosperity, and individual opportunity that serve as a basis for peace in our world.

So let us remember that this is a season of progress.  For the first time in decades, Tunisians, Egyptians and Libyans voted for new leaders in elections that were credible, competitive, and fair.  This democratic spirit has not been restricted to the Arab world.  Over the past year, we’ve seen peaceful transitions of power in Malawi and Senegal, and a new President in Somalia.  In Burma, a President has freed political prisoners and opened a closed society, a courageous dissident has been elected to parliament, and people look forward to further reform.  Around the globe, people are making their voices heard, insisting on their innate dignity, and the right to determine their future.

And yet the turmoil of recent weeks reminds us that the path to democracy does not end with the casting of a ballot.  Nelson Mandela once said:  “To be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.”  (Applause.)

True democracy demands that citizens cannot be thrown in jail because of what they believe, and that businesses can be opened without paying a bribe.  It depends on the freedom of citizens to speak their minds and assemble without fear, and on the rule of law and due process that guarantees the rights of all people.

In other words, true democracy — real freedom — is hard work.  Those in power have to resist the temptation to crack down on dissidents.  In hard economic times, countries must be tempted — may be tempted to rally the people around perceived enemies, at home and abroad, rather than focusing on the painstaking work of reform.

Moreover, there will always be those that reject human progress — dictators who cling to power, corrupt interests that depend on the status quo, and extremists who fan the flames of hate and division.  From Northern Ireland to South Asia, from Africa to the Americas, from the Balkans to the Pacific Rim, we’ve witnessed convulsions that can accompany transitions to a new political order.

At time, the conflicts arise along the fault lines of race or tribe.  And often they arise from the difficulties of reconciling tradition and faith with the diversity and interdependence of the modern world.  In every country, there are those who find different religious beliefs threatening; in every culture, those who love freedom for themselves must ask themselves how much they’re willing to tolerate freedom for others.

That is what we saw play out in the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world.  Now, I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity.
It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well — for as the city outside these walls makes clear, we are a country that has welcomed people of every race and every faith.  We are home to Muslims who worship across our country.  We not only respect the freedom of religion, we have laws that protect individuals from being harmed because of how they look or what they believe.  We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them.

I know there are some who ask why we don’t just ban such a video.  And the answer is enshrined in our laws:  Our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech.

Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense.  Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs.  As President of our country and Commander-in-Chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day — (laughter) — and I will always defend their right to do so.  (Applause.)

Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views, even views that we profoundly disagree with.  We do not do so because we support hateful speech, but because our founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views and practice their own faith may be threatened.  We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can quickly become a tool to silence critics and oppress minorities.

We do so because given the power of faith in our lives, and the passion that religious differences can inflame, the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression; it is more speech — the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy, and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect.

Now, I know that not all countries in this body share this particular understanding of the protection of free speech.  We recognize that.  But in 2012, at a time when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views around the world with the click of a button, the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete.  The question, then, is how do we respond?

And on this we must agree:  There is no speech that justifies mindless violence.  (Applause.)  There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents.  There’s no video that justifies an attack on an embassy.  There’s no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan.

In this modern world with modern technologies, for us to respond in that way to hateful speech empowers any individual who engages in such speech to create chaos around the world.  We empower the worst of us if that’s how we respond.

More broadly, the events of the last two weeks also speak to the need for all of us to honestly address the tensions between the West and the Arab world that is moving towards democracy.

Now, let me be clear:  Just as we cannot solve every problem in the world, the United States has not and will not seek to dictate the outcome of democratic transitions abroad.  We do not expect other nations to agree with us on every issue, nor do we assume that the violence of the past weeks or the hateful speech by some individuals represent the views of the overwhelming majority of Muslims, any more than the views of the people who produced this video represents those of Americans.  However, I do believe that it is the obligation of all leaders in all countries to speak out forcefully against violence and extremism.  (Applause.)

It is time to marginalize those who — even when not directly resorting to violence — use hatred of America, or the West, or Israel, as the central organizing principle of politics. For that only gives cover, and sometimes makes an excuse, for those who do resort to violence.

That brand of politics — one that pits East against West, and South against North, Muslims against Christians and Hindu and Jews — can’t deliver on the promise of freedom.  To the youth, it offers only false hope.  Burning an American flag does nothing to provide a child an education.  Smashing apart a restaurant does not fill an empty stomach.  Attacking an embassy won’t create a single job.  That brand of politics only makes it harder to achieve what we must do together:  educating our children, and creating the opportunities that they deserve; protecting human rights, and extending democracy’s promise.

Understand America will never retreat from the world.  We will bring justice to those who harm our citizens and our friends, and we will stand with our allies.  We are willing to partner with countries around the world to deepen ties of trade and investment, and science and technology, energy and development — all efforts that can spark economic growth for all our people and stabilize democratic change.

But such efforts depend on a spirit of mutual interest and mutual respect.  No government or company, no school or NGO will be confident working in a country where its people are endangered.  For partnerships to be effective our citizens must be secure and our efforts must be welcomed.

A politics based only on anger — one based on dividing the world between “us” and “them” — not only sets back international cooperation, it ultimately undermines those who tolerate it.  All of us have an interest in standing up to these forces.

Let us remember that Muslims have suffered the most at the hands of extremism.  On the same day our civilians were killed in Benghazi, a Turkish police officer was murdered in Istanbul only days before his wedding; more than 10 Yemenis were killed in a car bomb in Sana’a; several Afghan children were mourned by their parents just days after they were killed by a suicide bomber in Kabul.

The impulse towards intolerance and violence may initially be focused on the West, but over time it cannot be contained.  The same impulses toward extremism are used to justify war between Sunni and Shia, between tribes and clans.  It leads not to strength and prosperity but to chaos.  In less than two years, we have seen largely peaceful protests bring more change to Muslim-majority countries than a decade of violence.  And extremists understand this.  Because they have nothing to offer to improve the lives of people, violence is their only way to stay relevant.  They don’t build; they only destroy.

It is time to leave the call of violence and the politics of division behind.  On so many issues, we face a choice between the promise of the future, or the prisons of the past.  And we cannot afford to get it wrong.  We must seize this moment.  And America stands ready to work with all who are willing to embrace a better future.

The future must not belong to those who target Coptic Christians in Egypt — it must be claimed by those in Tahrir Square who chanted, “Muslims, Christians, we are one.”  The future must not belong to those who bully women — it must be shaped by girls who go to school, and those who stand for a world where our daughters can live their dreams just like our sons.  (Applause.)

The future must not belong to those corrupt few who steal a country’s resources — it must be won by the students and entrepreneurs, the workers and business owners who seek a broader prosperity for all people.  Those are the women and men that America stands with; theirs is the vision we will support.

The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.  But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated, or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied.  (Applause.)

Let us condemn incitement against Sufi Muslims and Shiite pilgrims.  It’s time to heed the words of Gandhi:  “Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit.”  (Applause.)  Together, we must work towards a world where we are strengthened by our differences, and not defined by them.  That is what America embodies, that’s the vision we will support.

Among Israelis and Palestinians, the future must not belong to those who turn their backs on a prospect of peace.  Let us leave behind those who thrive on conflict, those who reject the right of Israel to exist.  The road is hard, but the destination is clear — a secure, Jewish state of Israel and an independent, prosperous Palestine.  (Applause.)  Understanding that such a peace must come through a just agreement between the parties, America will walk alongside all who are prepared to make that journey.

In Syria, the future must not belong to a dictator who massacres his people.  If there is a cause that cries out for protest in the world today, peaceful protest, it is a regime that tortures children and shoots rockets at apartment buildings.  And we must remain engaged to assure that what began with citizens demanding their rights does not end in a cycle of sectarian violence.

Together, we must stand with those Syrians who believe in a different vision — a Syria that is united and inclusive, where children don’t need to fear their own government, and all Syrians have a say in how they are governed — Sunnis and Alawites, Kurds and Christians.  That’s what America stands for.  That is the outcome that we will work for — with sanctions and consequences for those who persecute, and assistance and support for those who work for this common good.  Because we believe that the Syrians who embrace this vision will have the strength and the legitimacy to lead.

In Iran, we see where the path of a violent and unaccountable ideology leads.  The Iranian people have a remarkable and ancient history, and many Iranians wish to enjoy peace and prosperity alongside their neighbors.  But just as it restricts the rights of its own people, the Iranian government continues to prop up a dictator in Damascus and supports terrorist groups abroad.  Time and again, it has failed to take the opportunity to demonstrate that its nuclear program is peaceful, and to meet its obligations to the United Nations.

So let me be clear.  America wants to resolve this issue through diplomacy, and we believe that there is still time and space to do so.  But that time is not unlimited.  We respect the right of nations to access peaceful nuclear power, but one of the purposes of the United Nations is to see that we harness that power for peace.  And make no mistake, a nuclear-armed Iran is not a challenge that can be contained.  It would threaten the elimination of Israel, the security of Gulf nations, and the stability of the global economy.  It risks triggering a nuclear-arms race in the region, and the unraveling of the non-proliferation treaty.  That’s why a coalition of countries is holding the Iranian government accountable.  And that’s why the United States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

We know from painful experience that the path to security and prosperity does not lie outside the boundaries of international law and respect for human rights.  That’s why this institution was established from the rubble of conflict.  That is why liberty triumphed over tyranny in the Cold War.  And that is the lesson of the last two decades as well.

History shows that peace and progress come to those who make the right choices.  Nations in every part of the world have traveled this difficult path.  Europe, the bloodiest battlefield of the 20th century, is united, free and at peace.  From Brazil to South Africa, from Turkey to South Korea, from India to Indonesia, people of different races, religions, and traditions have lifted millions out of poverty, while respecting the rights of their citizens and meeting their responsibilities as nations.

And it is because of the progress that I’ve witnessed in my own lifetime, the progress that I’ve witnessed after nearly four years as President, that I remain ever hopeful about the world that we live in.  The war in Iraq is over.  American troops have come home.  We’ve begun a transition in Afghanistan, and America and our allies will end our war on schedule in 2014.  Al Qaeda has been weakened, and Osama bin Laden is no more.  Nations have come together to lock down nuclear materials, and America and Russia are reducing our arsenals.  We have seen hard choices made — from Naypyidaw to Cairo to Abidjan — to put more power in the hands of citizens.

At a time of economic challenge, the world has come together to broaden prosperity.  Through the G20, we have partnered with emerging countries to keep the world on the path of recovery.  America has pursued a development agenda that fuels growth and breaks dependency, and worked with African leaders to help them feed their nations.  New partnerships have been forged to combat corruption and promote government that is open and transparent, and new commitments have been made through the Equal Futures Partnership to ensure that women and girls can fully participate in politics and pursue opportunity.  And later today, I will discuss our efforts to combat the scourge of human trafficking.

All these things give me hope.  But what gives me the most hope is not the actions of us, not the actions of leaders — it is the people that I’ve seen.  The American troops who have risked their lives and sacrificed their limbs for strangers half a world away; the students in Jakarta or Seoul who are eager to use their knowledge to benefit mankind; the faces in a square in Prague or a parliament in Ghana who see democracy giving voice to their aspirations; the young people in the favelas of Rio and the schools of Mumbai whose eyes shine with promise.  These men, women, and children of every race and every faith remind me that for every angry mob that gets shown on television, there are billions around the world who share similar hopes and dreams.  They tell us that there is a common heartbeat to humanity.

So much attention in our world turns to what divides us.  That’s what we see on the news.  That’s what consumes our political debates.  But when you strip it all away, people everywhere long for the freedom to determine their destiny; the dignity that comes with work; the comfort that comes with faith; and the justice that exists when governments serve their people  — and not the other way around.

The United States of America will always stand up for these aspirations, for our own people and for people all across the world.  That was our founding purpose.  That is what our history shows.  That is what Chris Stevens worked for throughout his life.

And I promise you this:  Long after the killers are brought to justice, Chris Stevens’s legacy will live on in the lives that he touched — in the tens of thousands who marched against violence through the streets of Benghazi; in the Libyans who changed their Facebook photo to one of Chris; in the signs that read, simply, “Chris Stevens was a friend to all Libyans.”

They should give us hope.  They should remind us that so long as we work for it, justice will be done, that history is on our side, and that a rising tide of liberty will never be reversed.

Thank you very much.  (Applause.)

END
10:16 A.M. EDT

Related:

Murder of American is Benghazi: Low Point in American History