• In Le Figaro, Georges Malbrunot refers to Syria as a country under Russian military control. He asserts that Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov came to Damascus negotiate the Nyet! at the UN in exchange for the reopening of the Soviet listening base on Mount Qasioun in the Golan Heights. He is wrong on two counts: First, it is the Syrians who requested it long ago. In recent years, they intensified their free offers to the Russian army, to have their presence protect the country, and it is the Russians who declined these proposals. Secondly, the technical needs in this domain have changed since the days of the Soviet Union.

Libération breaks new ground in media reporting: the French daily reproduces testimonies collected by telephone, without the slightest verification. There is nothing surprising about this lack of professionalism: the journalist Hala Kodmani is none other than the sister of the spokeswoman for the Syrian National Council.

Junge Welt takes a stand for dialogue and against war in Syria. The daily Marxist plugs the campaign launched by the international association of doctors against war.

• The Tageszeitung underlines that even if all Europeans agree on the sanctions, they do not necessarily always apply them. Thus, Sweden looks after its markets and turns a blind eye to Ericsson’s exports of telecommunications equipment.

• Anna Zafesova of La Stampa considers that Russia’s support of Syria is purely for domestic consumption in view of the upcoming elections. But then, what about China?

El Pais addresses the replacement strategy of the United States: they will form a Friends of Syria group with those States that wish to join. It will send a message to the Arab countries that they have not been abandoned. In reality, the aim is to padlock US influence in the region to prevent new states from turning to Moscow and Beijing for protection.

The Globe and Mail affirms that Canada is not giving up the diplomatic battle. Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who is set to visit China, will not fail to discuss Syria with the Prime Minister. This is mainly to mask the fact that Ottawa is not closing its embassy in Damascus, despite Washington’s entreaties.

• In the New York Times, Will Englud refrains from engaging in the usual anti-Russian imprecations. He mentions, as a possible motive for the veto, the influence of Saudi Arabia and Qatar on Islamist movements in Russia.

• While Haaretz published a satirical cartoon hinting that the fall of al-Assad would be detrimental to Hezbollah, Harel Amors envisions another scenario: chemical weapons in Syria that could turn up in Hezbollah’s arsenal.

• Analyst A. G. Noorani explains in The Hindu that nothing can be done to help the Syrians as long as the specter of forced "regime change" is still looming. Nobody believes Western leaders when they say they have no such intentions; and their written guarantees are vacuous ever since they violated the relevant UN resolutions to overthrow Gaddafi.

• The editor of Times of India would like to see his country getting involved in the Syrian crisis as a mediator. But this would imply that New Delhi must first assert itself as a truly independent power. In contrast, the thrust of the editorial is to move away from the United States without aligning with Russia and China.

• The Moscow Times notes that not only Sergey Lavrov reacted strongly to the anti-Russian campaign by qualifying it as hysterical, but Evgeni Primakov has accused the U.S. of exploiting the Arab Spring climate to overthrow the regimes they dislike .

• The Chinese Foreign Ministry has rejected Western accusations that now they have blood on their hands, reports China Daily. It made it clear that the veto was used in the interest of justice, which is the same as saying that the objective pursued by the West is unjust.

Attached documents


(PDF - 8.5 Mb)