In Syria, Humanitarian Aid Props up a Murderous Regime

By Henry Srebrnik, [Summerside, PEI] Journal Pioneer

In the horrific Syrian civil war, now into is eight year, the international humanitarian system served as an enabler of the Assad regime.

By accepting its claims as a sovereign state, international aid agencies helped the regime generate tangible benefits and resources in its wider efforts to persist at all costs. 

Indeed, at a time when it faced almost certain defeat, they were critical to the regime’s resilience and its insistence – against all empirical evidence -- on being recognized as the only legitimate player in a country that had actually been ripped apart by contending rebel groups. 

An understanding was hammered out between May and August 2012 allowing eight UN agencies and nine international non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to operate inside Syria. But only by acknowledging the “sovereignty, territorial integrity and national unity” of the country. 

So Syrian officials insisted that the Damascus government was to be fully in charge and that all outside groups provide unconditional respect for state sovereignty -- already a fiction by that time.

NGOs were further restricted by being allowed to work only with local relief agencies affiliated with the Syrian Arab Red Crescent Society (SARC) – an organization hose claim to independence from government control was dubious at best.

SARC was given a gatekeeper’s role over the UN’s humanitarian operations in Syria. It became a mandatory operational partner and a focal point for all NGOs.

In fact, among the senior local staff employed by UN agencies in the country were individuals known for their ties to the Syrian secret police (Mukhabarat) and relatives of senior regime incumbents.

Humanitarian assistance was subjected to a host of crippling administrative and politically motivated hurdles. For instance, throughout 2015, only 23 per cent of UN convoy requests reportedly received government approval, and less than half of those were able to proceed, primarily because of the Syrian government’s refusal to give security clearances.

Requests to deliver medical assistance, such as surgical supplies, were rejected or ignored. In some cases, regime forces distributed aid items they had seized to regime supporters and military personnel.

On the other hand, the regime labelled unlicensed aid workers escaping government control as criminals and terrorists. The Syrian Civil Defence rescue workers known as “White Helmets” were targeted in air strikes, though they asserted impartiality in the Syrian conflict.

Under further threat from the Assad government, may of them were evacuated in 2018, finding asylum in Canada, Jordan, and Great Britain.

Saudi Arabia also provided some aid through its International Islamic Relief Organization, but this went mostly to Syrian refugees in camps in Jordan.

So, through its loud assertions of state sovereignty, the Syrian regime has maneuvered itself into the driving seat and became by far the dominant partner in its relations with UN humanitarian agencies and NGOs. 

It gained significant financial resources directly from the humanitarian aid efforts as it provided business and financial opportunities to privileged members of the government. These included enterprises that were subject to American and European Union sanctions.

“We recognize and respect Syria’s state sovereignty despite the difficult situation and the extra ordinary circumstances,” the UN’s own resident humanitarian coordinator, Yaqoub al-Hilo, remarked a few years ago, in explaining his mission.

Opposition-held areas received far less aid in proportion to the scope and severity of their needs. UN agencies fell prey to the regime’s manipulations, causing aid to be channeled away from rebel-held areas. 

Damascus continued to wield its nominal sovereignty over its borders by denying the UN authorization to use at least nine border crossings that could have served millions of people in need, especially in Idlib and Aleppo, though most of these crossings weren’t even under government control.

Yet donors rarely raised questions, because they had no interest in tarnishing the UN-led aid effort.

As Stanford University political scientist Stephen Krasner observed in his book Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy, “rulers seek legal sovereignty because it provides them with an array of material and normative resources and benefits” while it “imposes no costs.”

This is indeed a cautionary tale. It demonstrates the skills that an authoritarian regime used in order to build, sustain, and set the terms in its dealings with international aid groups despite the well-known knowledge of its brutality.

Why I Will Probably No Longer Publish in the Charlottetown Guardian

By Henry Srebrnik, [Calgary] Jewish Free Press

Readers of the Jewish Free Press may recall my article of November 20, 2015, “Attacks by an Anti-Zionist Bully.” Well, it recently happened again.

So, unless I receive an apology, I will never write for Prince Edward Island’s main newspaper again. 

Here’s why:

On January 23, the Charlottetown Guardian, which had been the venue for these assaults, published an opinion piece by the same person, Richard Deaton, entitled “Sue Me, You Zionist Goons.” Deaton has written numerous attacks on Israel and Zionism in the Guardian. 

I was one of the “goons” referred to in this inflammatory headline. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines the term “goon” as “a man hired to terrorize or eliminate opponents.”

 

It conjures up images of a street brawler or criminal, not a university professor with a reputation to uphold. It is also a threat, as who knows who might take it upon themselves to “silence” such a nefarious character.

The Deaton piece crossed a line-- the headline, the tasteless Nazi analogy, and the naming of individuals went against all journalistic ethics.

Since virtually every member of the organized PEI Jewish community – and this doesn’t include Deaton, as he has never participated in any of our activities – supports the continued existence of the State of Israel, I guess this makes all of us “Zionist goons.” So the Guardian has insulted all of us.      

It was also beyond disappointing to me that the Guardian allowed such a vicious attack on a regular contributor to the paper, one in which I have published almost 500 columns over the years.

I should have stopped writing for the Guardian in 2015 when Deaton commenced his personal vendetta against me. Instead, I was persuaded by a number of people -- including many Guardian readers who spontaneously contacted me -- that my articles are informative and have a large following.

But now -- well, enough is enough.

I don’t care about the ravings of Richard Deaton – as it happens, the article of mine he referenced in his screed, “The Many Faces of Anti-Semitism,” was a reasonable and judicious analysis of growing anti-Semitism on both the left and right in the United States, and was in fact published, not in the Guardian, but in the Dec. 10 issue of the Summerside Journal Pioneer. 

A few days later, Guardian managing editor Wayne Thibodeau, in response to a concerned member of the PEI Jewish community, addressed the decision in the following letter:

“There is no question that Israeli politics is divisive and it has created a firestorm on our opinion pages, especially between Mr. Deaton and Mr. Fegelman” (the other person attacked by Deaton).

“Mr. Deaton’s letter was carefully vetted. In the letter, he asked to respond to Mike Fegelman, executive director of the group, Honest Reporting Canada.

“That being said, in hindsight, a more tactful headline could have been chosen for the letter.

“We are more than willing to offer you equal space to respond to Mr. Deaton and The Guardian’s decision to publish his letter.

“It’s never an easy decision to decide what to print and what to censor. We want to facilitate discussions which are important to our readers.

This reply actually made things worse. In other words, the article didn’t just slip by through carelessness or inattention. The editors actually approved this vicious attack and deemed it fit to print. 

And if it was meant as a reply to Mike Fegelman, why was Deaton allowed to include me as a “Zionist goon?”

I know for a fact that there were letters to the editor criticizing Deaton’s ridiculous rant; the Guardian refused to publish them. I have, though, received many personal e-mails from people aghast at this.

“These kinds of personal attacks on private citizens are completely out of line and should never be published,” wrote one member of our Jewish community. “It’s so sad and alarming!” said another.

A former consultant to the Halifax-based office of a national Jewish organization said, “I thought that the tone of Deaton’s letter was absolutely shocking and that the Guardian made a gross error in judgement in publishing it. In any event, I am simply writing to express my support for you, and to encourage you to keep up your excellent work.”

Naomi Rosenfeld, executive director of the Atlantic Jewish Council in Halifax, sent this message to the Prince Edward Island Jewish Community’s Facebook page on Feb. 7:

“Hi Everyone - I want to make sure you know that the AJC and CIJA [the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs] are well aware of the recent outrageous article in the PEI Guardian attacking Henry and the history of the publication of these sorts of inappropriate personal attacks and anti-Israel rants. We are taking this matter very seriously and currently doing some research to help plan our next steps. But we need your help.”

I spoke to Rosenfeld a day later and she promised that the Council would take action in this matter. In an article published on March 14 in the Canadian Jewish News, “Columnist Quits After Being Called ‘Zionist Goon’,” she elaborated, saying the Atlantic Jewish Council was “shocked and disappointed to see the types of op-eds that the P.E.I. Guardian has published, especially the inflammatory and misleading piece of Jan. 23, entitled Sue Me, You Zionist Goons. We are in touch with the leadership at the Guardian to ensure that this sort of misinformation is not published in the future.”

Can anyone imagine an op-ed piece with such vulgar and intemperate language, and the singling out of private citizens, ever being published in a newspaper of record like the Globe and Mail or the New York Times? Of course not. Yet the Guardian served as an enabler for someone spewing hate.

Iran's Economic Ties with China Deepen

By Henry Srebrnik, [Summerside, PEI] Journal Pioneer

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif and his Chinese counterpart Wang Yi met in Beijing Feb. 19.

Zarif led an Iranian delegation to Beijing that included the speaker of the Majlis, the Iranian parliament, Ali Larijani, and the ministers of finance and petroleum, as well as the CEO of the country’s central bank.

Wang told Zarif he hoped the visit would “deepen the strategic trust between our two countries.” 

Zarif replied that “Our relationship with China is very valuable to us. We consider the comprehensive strategic partnership between Iran and China as one of our most important relations.”

China’s President Xi Jinping also threw his weight behind efforts to build stronger relations between Tehran and Beijing.

“China is seeking to develop strategic wide-ranging relations with Iran,” he said in a meeting with Larijani.

The Majlis speaker pointed to “historical” and “friendly” relations between the two sides and described Beijing as “a reliable partner” for Tehran.

Larijani indicated that Tehran is prepared to cooperate with China’s Belt and Road Initiative.

President Xi’s infrastructure project, launched in 2013, seeks to connect China to global markets by linking Asia and Europe via a set of land and maritime trade routes.

The project is valued at more than one-trillion dollars, spanning over 60 countries across Asia, the Middle East, Europe, and Africa. And Iran is at the geographic and logistical center of this new Silk Road between east and west.

For millennia, Iran has prospered as a trading hub linking east and west. Now, that role is set to expand in coming years.

Iran is now critical to China’s ability to realize its economic ambitions. Other routes to western markets are longer and lead through Russia, potentially a competitor of China.

The proposed 3,200-kilometre route of the new Silk Road begins in Urumqi in western China and continues to Iran, where it will continue northwest through Turkey into Europe.

China and Iran have already cooperated with each other in the construction of some lines on Tehran’s subway, and on the Tehran-Isfahan high-speed railway currently under construction.

Other rail projects will connect Tehran and Mashhad with deep water ports in the country’s south.

In a 2016 test, China and Iran drove a train from the port of Shanghai in eastern China to Tehran in just 12 days, a journey that takes 30 days by sea. 

In Iran, they used the existing track between Tehran and Mashhad, powered by a slower diesel-powered train. When the new line is opened in 2021, it is expected to accommodate electric trains at speeds up to 200 kilometres an hour.

Last November, United States President Donald Trump imposed sanctions on Iran, resulting in a depreciated currency, rampant inflation is rampant, and high unemployment. 

Boosting ties with China and Russia, permanent members of the UN Security Council, would help reduce the impact of U.S. pressure. And China is indeed looking for ways to keep Iran afloat.

 “China has healthy, superb, extensive and stable relations with Iran, particularly in the field of economy, and we want to further expand them,” remarked China’s Assistant Foreign Minister Zhang Jun last summer.

Iran could facilitate China’s relations with the Middle East and Europe via the road, he noted.

As well, joint projects in Iran’s oilfields will help the economic development of both countries. China is an important market for Iranian oil – Beijing imports approximately 10 percent of its oil from Iran -- and because of American sanctions, it is the only source of the large amounts of capital Iran needs to finance critical infrastructure projects.

Today, China is Iran’s most important trading partner. Chinese and Iranian trade is based on everything from energy to arms, from nuclear technologies to Chinese infrastructure investment in Iran, from sunflowers to hijabs.

Chinese state companies are active all over the country, building highways, digging mines and making steel. Tehran’s shops are flooded with Chinese products and its streets full of Chinese cars and buses.

 “China is dominating Iran,” declared Mehdi Taghavi, an economics professor at Allameh Tabataba’i University in Tehran, but he suggested that the “Iranian authorities do not see any drawbacks to being dependent on China. Together, we are moving ahead.”