US looks to G8 summit to build consensus over Syriaby Dan Roberts, Angelique Chrisafis, Miriam Elder, Richard Norton-Taylor
Washington in talks with allies over radical options including no-fly zone as plan for small arms support meets lukewarm reaction
The White House will use next week's G8 summit to seek international support for further intervention in Syria that may go beyond the limited military assistance announced on Thursday night, in an attempt to force the Assad regime and its Russian allies into meaningful peace talks.
Discussions are under way between the US and key foreign allies over a range of options, including a no-fly zone, and are likely to come to a head during the G8, when Obama is also scheduled to have bilateral discussions with President Putin.
As apparent US plans to provide small arms to rebel forces met with a disappointed reaction among commanders on the ground, attention is shifting in Washington to building consensus for more radical options.
"This is a fluid situation so it is necessary for [Obama] to consult with leaders of the G8 about the types of support that we are providing for the opposition," the deputy national security adviser, Ben Rhodes, said in a press conference on Friday.
On Friday night, Obama discussed the situation in Syria in an hour-long video conference with British prime minister David Cameron, French president François Hollande, German chancellor Angela Merkel and Italian prime minister Enrico Letta ahead of next week's summit in Lough Erne.
However, the option of using western air power to impose a no-fly-zone is still seen as fraught with difficulties, according to diplomats in Washington, who say the US and Britain remain wary of becoming embroiled in an escalating military conflict.
Hopes of swiftly persuading the Russians not to oppose such a move were also dashed on Friday when Moscow said it did not believe new US claims of chemical weapons use by Syrian government forces and warned that even arming the rebels with guns would jeopardise peace talks.
Yury Ushakov, foreign policy adviswr to Vladimir Putin, said American officials had briefed Russia on Assad's alleged deployment of chemical weapons. "But I will say frankly that what was presented to us by the Americans does not look convincing," he said. "It would be hard even to call them facts."
Syria's foreign ministry accused the US of lying about chemical weapons use to give it an excuse to intervene. "The White House ... relied on fabricated information in order to hold the Syrian government responsible for using these weapons, despite a series of statements that confirmed that terrorist groups in Syria have chemical weapons," a spokesman said.
Instead, US diplomatic sources say Washington is likely to work with European and Arab allies to assess how much further it can go in supporting the rebels without triggering a wider international conflict.
"The Russians have been awful on this all along, so it's not surprising they are being difficult now," said one US government official.
David Cameron said Britain welcomed the changed US position over chemical weapons and military support, but UK officials said any decision to impose a no-fly zone or "safe havens" would need an international agreement.
"I think it, rightly, puts back centre stage the question, the very difficult question to answer but nonetheless one we have got to address: what are we going to do about the fact that in our world today there is a dictatorial and brutal leader who is using chemical weapons under our noses against his own people," said the prime minister in an interview with the Guardian.
The German chancellor, Angela Merkel, said the UN security council should meet urgently to reach a joint position on Syria. "We hope the security council will achieve a united approach," she told the BBC, adding that it would still be best to attempt an international Syrian peace conference.
But without the support of Russia, a permanent member of the security council, such consensus remains difficult.
Syrian rebels reacted with disappointment to the US announcement of military suppor", saying it would have limited impact if – as is widely understood in Washington – it was currently limited to small arms and ammunition.
Captain Ammar Jamal, an FSA commander in Damascus, said: "We need to know what kind of weapons. Are they going to send me a gun? What am I going to do with a gun?"
"We want anti-aircraft launchers and anti-tanks missiles would be great," he added.
Government forces are shortly expected to begin a major offensive against the rebel-held city of Aleppo, a factor that the White House said had helped prompt its decision to intervene.
But security analysts in Washington said the US decision to provide unspecified military support was unlikely to make much difference on its own.
Barry Pavel, a former senior director for defence policy and strategy on the National Security Council under President Obama, said: "It looks like this was an agreement to arm the rebels with small arms and possibly anti-tank missiles, but in light of what others are throwing at them, including Hezbollah and possibly Iran, I don't think it's going to help – these are baby steps."
Anthony Cordesman, who was director of intelligence assessment in the office of the secretary of defence and who now works at the Center for Stategic and International Studies, said Thursday's announcement should not be read too carefully and was likely just a first step in attempts to reposition the US.
"There is probably a reason for not saying too much before the G8 where there will be a final attempt to work with the Russians and be clear about what level of Arab support you have," he said.
"What is unclear to everyone in DC is whether the administration is going to go on doing too little too late to have meaningful effect. The problem is this is a White House that remains deeply divided."
On Thursday night, the White House hinted at the diplomatic tightrope walk to come.
"We're also going to be consulting in the days ahead with both Congress and the international community," Rhodes added.
"The president will also be consulting with his G8 partners in the United Kingdom beginning next week, and we'll continue to have discussions both with friends and allies, including those who have joined us and the Friends of the Syrian People and at the United Nations where we are sharing this information."
French officials are to meet for discussions this weekend with the head of the Free Syrian army, Salim Idriss, and the French foreign minister, Laurent Fabius, will hold telephone talks with John Kerry.
"Any final decision will be up to the three heads of state – France, the UK and US – at the G8," a French official said.
On the issue of any decision on military support, the official said: "We are waiting for talks at the G8. The acknowledgement from the US that Syria has 'crossed clear red lines', and the fact that France and the UK announced last week solid proof of the use of chemical weapons is changing things."
On Friday, France said that establishing a no-fly zone in Syria was unlikely for now because of opposition from some members of the UN security council.
Philippe Lalliot, the foreign ministry spokesman, said: "The problem with this type of measure is that it can only be put in place with approval from the international community. A decision from the United Nations security council is needed, and not just any decision."
A Chapter 7 resolution authorising military action was needed and that was unlikely to be passed, he said.
France, whose foreign minister said last month that "all options were on the table" in terms of responding to Syria's use on chemical weapons, will continue talks with the Syrian opposition this weekend.
Paris, which has channelled large amounts of medical and humanitarian aid and built on contacts in liberated zones, is concerned at Syrian government gains this month, including the taking of the former rebel stronghold of Qoussair, and the implications for the balance of force in the run-up to July's Geneva talks.
Additional reporting by Mona Mahmood in London
guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Read the whole story
· · · · · · ·
Widow says Sunday's meeting with David Cameron shows UK and Russia have agreed to ignore husband's polonium poisoning
The widow of the murdered Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko has criticised David Cameron's decision to meet Vladimir Putin in Downing Street on Sunday, in the run-up to next week's G8 summit, saying it is morally wrong to "appease dictators".
Marina Litvinenko said she was not against bilateral talks between London and Moscow. But she said she was disturbed by the prime minister's increasingly personal friendship with Russia's authoritarian president, and by Cameron's apparent willingness to forget about the killing of her husband by polonium poisoning in 2006.
Putin had refused British attempts to extradite Litvinenko's two alleged assassins, former KGB agents Andrei Lugovoi and Dmitry Kovtun, she pointed out.
"I'm not against Russia at all. I believe these two great countries have to have a friendship. But you can't avoid the question of my husband's death," she told the Guardian on Friday. She said: "Tony Blair also sought good relations with Putin. It collapsed after a couple of years. [The former US president] George Bush looked into Putin's eyes and made the same mistake. Cameron should know better. We know from history there is no point in appeasing dictators."
Her remarks came after it emerged that a prominent Russian human rights activist and Putin critic, Oksana Chelysheva, was removed from Stansted airport on Thursday. Chelysheva, who has been the target of repeated Kremlin harassment, had been due to speak about Chechnya on Friday at a major international rights conference in Derry, Northern Ireland. Immigration officials gave no reason for her exclusion. Chelysheva, who has a Finnish passport, said: "I don't believe in coincidences."
Foreign Office officials say Cameron is keen to engage with Putin in order to make progress on Syria and to move towards a peace conference in Geneva. They stress that Russia is a key international player in the Syrian conflict, and a diplomatic and military backer of Syria's president, Bashar al-Assad. The Kremlin was unimpressed on Friday by US plans to arm Syria's moderate rebels and saidWashington's proof that Assad had used chemical weapons "did not look convincing". The UK backs the US's stance.
Marina Litvinenko said she was convinced London and Moscow had struck a pragmatic understanding to bury the Litvinenko affair. She said: "How can you have serious talks about security in Syria with a person who doesn't want you to provide justice following a polonium terror attack in central London? It was obviously Mr Putin himself who protected Lugovoi from extradition. I believe it is Putin who also decided that Lugovoi should become a Russian MP."
The foreign secretary, William Hague, has succeeded in a controversial attempt to exclude sensitive government documents from an inquest into Litvinenko's death. The documents establish a prima facie case that the Russian state was behind his murder. As a result of Hague's gagging move the coroner has said he can no longer be satisfied the inquest can deliver justice. He has requested a public inquiry instead. The justice secretary, Chris Grayling, will rule on the request by 3 July.
After meeting Putin last month in the Black Sea resort of Sochi, Cameron announced that British security services and Russia's FSB spy agency would resume intelligence co-operation in the run-up to the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi. The former foreign secretary David Miliband broke off contact in 2007 after concluding the FSB had played a lead role in the Litvinenko murder plot. UK-Russian relations improved after Putin visited London last year, watching the judo at the Olympics with Cameron. Recently there have been a series of top-level ministerial visits.
Alex Goldfarb, Litvinenko's close friend, said Cameron's wooing of Putin would ultimately "lead to disaster". Of Sunday's Downing Street meeting, he said: "It's a licence to kill, essentially. It means Putin has impunity to kill people in the centre of London and then laugh at those who think there is something wrong about that."
Goldfarb added: "If Charlie Chaplin were alive he would make a film about Putin similar to The Great Dictator. In this case Cameron has shortchanged Marina Litvinenko and justice more generally for the sake of realpolitik with Mr Putin."
When asked about Chelysheva, British officials said they would not comment on individual cases. But a Foreign Office source said: "We would not have removed someone for criticism of the British government, let alone any foreign government."
In 2006 Chelysheva won Amnesty International's special award for human rights journalism under threat for her campaign to reveal abuses in Chechnya. She was forced to flee Russia in 2008 after police raided the offices of her human rights group. Her 2013 memoir, They Followed Me in the Street, describes her harassment by Putin's secret agents, including surveillance, "weird phone calls" and interrogations.
Paul O'Connor, the organiser of the Derry event, told the Belfast Telegraph: "Why wasn't she allowed in? We are asking the question why was an esteemed, award-winning journalist recognised by Amnesty International not allowed to enter the country." He added: "We will now have an empty chair where someone was supposed to be talking about the situation in Chechnya. It does not reflect well."
Marina Litvinenko said she had met Miliband twice when he was foreign secretary. Hague had telephoned her once but had declined to meet, citing pressure of work. An FCO official said: "We are absolutely committed to getting justice for Litvinenko's family."
guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Read the whole story
· · · · ·
G20 summit: NSA targeted Russian president Medvedev in Londonby Ewen MacAskill, Nick Davies, Nick Hopkins, Julian Borger, James Ball
Leaked documents reveal Russian president was spied on during visit, as questions are raised over use of US base in Britain
American spies based in the UK intercepted the top-secret communications of the then Russian president, Dmitry Medvedev, during his visit to Britain for the G20 summit in London, leaked documents reveal.
The details of the intercept were set out in a briefing prepared by the National Security Agency (NSA), America's biggest surveillance and eavesdropping organisation, and shared with high-ranking officials from Britain, Australia, Canada and New Zealand.
The document, leaked by the NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden and seen by the Guardian, shows the agency believed it might have discovered "a change in the way Russian leadership signals have been normally transmitted".
The disclosure underlines the importance of the US spy hub at RAF Menwith Hill in Harrogate, North Yorkshire, where hundreds of NSA analysts are based, working alongside liaison officers from GCHQ.
The document was drafted in August 2009, four months after the visit by Medvedev, who joined other world leaders in London, including the US president, Barack Obama, for the event hosted by the British prime minister, Gordon Brown.
Medvedev arrived in London on Wednesday 1 April and the NSA intercepted communications from his delegation the same day, according to the NSA paper, entitled: "Russian Leadership Communications in support of President Dmitry Medvedev at the G20 summit in London – Intercept at Menwith Hill station."
The document starts with two pictures of Medvedev smiling for the world's media alongside Brown and Obama in bilateral discussions before the main summit.
The report says: "This is an analysis of signal activity in support of President Dmitry Medvedev's visit to London. The report details a change in the way Russian leadership signals have been normally transmitted. The signal activity was found to be emanating from the Russian embassy in London and the communications are believed to be in support of the Russian president."
The NSA interception of the Russian leadership at G20 came hours after Obama and Medvedev had met for the first time. Relations between the two leaders had been smoothed in the runup to the summit with a series of phone calls and letters, with both men wanting to establish a trusting relationship to discuss the ongoing banking crisis and nuclear disarmament.
In the aftermath of their discussions on 1 April, the two men issued a joint communique saying they intended to "move further along the path of reducing and limiting strategic offensive arms in accordance with the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons".
A White House official who briefed journalists described the meeting as "a very successful first meeting focused on real issues". The official said it had been important for the men to be open about the issues on which they agreed and disagreed. Obama had stressed the need to be candid, the official noted.
While it has been widely known the two countries spy on each other, it is rare for either to be caught in the act; the latest disclosures will also be deeply embarrassing for the White House as Obama prepares to meet Vladimir Putin, who succeeded Medvedev as president, in the margins of the G8 summit this week.
The two countries have long complained about the extent of each other's espionage activities, and tit-for-tat expulsions of diplomats are common. A year after Obama met Medvedev, the US claimed it had broken a highly sophisticated spy ring that carried out "deep cover" assignments in the US.
Ten alleged Russian spies living in America were arrested.
Putin was withering of the FBI-led operation: "I see that your police have let themselves go and put some people in jail, but I guess that is their job. I hope the positive trend that we have seen develop in our bilateral relations recently will not be harmed by these events." Last month, the Russians arrested an American in Moscow who they alleged was a CIA agent.
The new revelations underline the significance of RAF Menwith Hill and raise questions about its relationship to the British intelligence agencies, and who is responsible for overseeing it. The 560-acre site was leased to the Americans in 1954 and the NSA has had a large presence there since 1966.
It has often been described as the biggest surveillance and interception facility in the world, and has 33 distinct white "radomes" that house satellite dishes. A US base in all but name, it has British intelligence analysts seconded to work alongside NSA colleagues, though it is unclear how the two agencies obtain and share intelligence – and under whose legal authority they are working under.
guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Read the whole story
· · · · · ·
The country is already awash with weapons, which are at the limit of what can be safely given to the rebels
On examining the US assessment of Syria's alleged chemical weapons use, Vladimir Putin's top foreign policy adviser, Yuri Ushakov, said: "What was presented to us by the Americans does not look convincing. It would be hard to even call them facts."
Unwelcome as it may be to the French and British governments, who have been leading the push for this finding, he is right. The White House statement says that laboratory analyses of samples "reveal exposure to sarin" (which the NY Times reports amounts to two individuals, who have been shown to have traces of the agent sarin in their bodies), but then goes on to add the qualifier that "each positive result indicates that an individual was exposed to sarin, but it does not tell us how or where the individuals were exposed, or who was responsible for the dissemination". Hardly a proverbial smoking gun. It is quite possibly, as Anthony Cordesman has noted, a "political ploy". The finding rests, we are told, on "analysis" and "reporting", but perhaps more candidly we should call it "supposition".
In any event, these two governments have laboured mightily to get what they wanted – a peg, however flimsy, to validate arming the Syrian opposition. The Europeans' rationale is that only by correcting the asymmetry of military power can President Assad be cajoled into serious negotiations with the opposition. But is this right? Will arming the opposition make the situation for the Syrian people better, or will it lead to more bloodshed?
Has the finding brought the crossing of a policy "red line" too? Well, no. The New York Times has detailed that the opposition has received, since the beginning of 2012, possibly as much as 3,500 tons of weapons, and lists the flights by which the materiel arrived, and from where they derived. This represents a huge air-bridge of munitions. Twenty odd years ago, I witnessed the arming of the mujahideen in Afghanistan in their battle against the Soviet forces. Then, a single cargo a month was thought substantial. At times, the Syrian opposition has been receiving one every other day.
Syria is already awash with weapons. But as we discovered in Afghanistan, however much is given, it is "never enough", and if the opposition begins losing, inevitably it is the west's failure to give more and better weapons that is the cause. Only with hindsight was it plain that the Afghan mujahideen's problems began when "big money" became available from donors, the conflict became "business."
Reuters, on Syria, tells us nothing has changed. It reports an incident on the Turkish-Syrian border where France's recently recalled ambassador to Syria gave "a stash of brown envelopes stuffed with thousands of dollars" to "'viable' [that is, non-Al-Qaida] rebels operating in zones no longer under Bashar al-Assad's control".
A few weapons, more or less, will change nothing. Weapons will not stay with the preferred recipients: warlords will trade, as in Afghanistan. And no real shift in western policy has occurred either: the US deputy national security adviser has said there will be no escalation in the weapons supplied to the insurgents and that there will be no no-fly zones. Supplies already are at the limit of what can be safely given – and if advanced items ever were to reach al-Qaida this would be a huge 9/11 "hot button" event for the US.
Much of this is likely to be rehashed in the G8 meeting today, but Putin will denounce any escalation in arming the opposition and may threaten, as before, a counter-response. Iran's new president,Hassan Rouhani, is unlikely to change his country's policy on Syria either.
I am sure David Cameron finds the opposition fighters he meets to be decent human beings, and that he is moved to help them. But this war is complex: it directly cuts through an ancient and highly emotive and sectarian regional fault line – one that does not divide between "friends and foes" of democracy.
Britain and France risk being lured — by the heightened, sectarian Gulf clamour, fearful of impending 'Sunni defeat' — into finding themselves ever more closely allied with Sunni proxies of al-Qaida. And as these gain empowerment – as is happening – the west's contradictions can only become more apparent and bloodshed across the region increase.
guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Read the whole story
· · · ·
Syria crisis set to dominate G8 summitby Matthew Weaver, Guardian readers
The crisis in Syria is set to dominate the agenda of the G8 summit in Enniskillen
The news that Pre
