Syria, UN Veto’s & Western Foreign Policy

So what are we to make of the situation in Syria?

The UK, US and France have vigorously attempted to get a UN security resolution passed on the ever worsening conditions in Syria, a resolution which has been vetoed by both permanent UNSC members China & Russia.

The Russian envoy to the UNSC, Vitaly Churkin has insisted that:

“Some influential members of the international community unfortunately… have been undermining the opportunity for political settlement, calling for a regime change, pushing the oppositionists to power”

You have to question the real motives of the Western diplomats and their Arab allies. Susan Rice, the US ambassador to the UN has made blustering statements on the veto:

“sell out the Syrian people and shield a craven tyrant……any further bloodshed that flows will be on their hands”

Our very own William Hague hasn’t been that far behind his American counterpart, stating the veto:

“lets the Syrian people down, and will only encourage President Assad’s brutal regime to increase the killing”

Almost every single player involved in this unfolding tragedy are engaged in the same manner of self righteous indignation. The same players of course that were prominent in the regime change in Libya.

I’m no fan of the regimes in Damascus, Moscow or Beijing, but are they right to veto the resolution?

Yes

But not for the whiter than white reasons they might claim.

There is a far greater game being carved out in the Middle East, sadly our media (as well as Al Jazeera) is presenting it as a simple case of acrimony amidst the geo-political self interests of China and Russia, against the benevolent and kind hearted nature of UNSC members that supported the resolution.

The resolution was of course itself driven by political machinations, by strategic demands and  potential gains. It is downright perfidious to suggest that the real concerns of the western political powers are with the Syrian people.

In fact some media commentators have stated that the unfolding conflict in Syria has been covered with “less interest in empirically collected data and more reliance on hysteria and manipulation and rumour.”

For example, last Friday’s attack on Homs was reported to have killed more than two hundred people, in reality the number was later revised to fifty five.  Fifty five deaths too many, but when your only sources are “activists” that you are using to bolster another western intervention, the veracity of the information cannot be guaranteed. The apple hasn’t fallen far from the tree where the Assad’s are concerned. Basher’s father, Hafez gave the go ahead for the Hama massacre of February 1982 that left tens of thousands of Syrians dead.

Do I condemn Assad and his regime, of course I do, whole heartedly, but not for the same reasons of self interest “The West” has.

With Libya as the new template for regime change, we have to ask the questions that no one else is asking:

Why is there not a greater split amongst the Assad regime?

Who are the “Free Syrian Army”?

Who are the “Syrian National Council”?

Who is arming the rebel factions?

Why are Qatar acting as a military and media cheerleader?

Why have the Saudi’s declared it recognises the Syrian National Council and what is their motivation in doing so?

The written testimony of Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer is worth considering. He claimed last year that:

“NATO is already clandestinely engaged in the Syrian conflict”

If this is correct, why are NATO involved in conspiratorial schemes of regime change, deemed illegal under international law ?

Would you be surprised to know that the self styled Christian crusading knight and uber mercenary Erik Prince and his Blackwater boys have been carrying out covert operations in Syria since January 2011. In a recent interview, Prince stated:

“In Syria, we did the signals intelligence to geo-locate the bad guys in a very denied area”

So will direct intervention like in Libya improve the situation?

These are the questions to which we should be demanding answers, yet they are not even being asked. The official narrative (same as Libya) is of the archetypal evil Arab tyrant, butchering his own people. These narratives are of course promoted by the very same people who want regime change in Syria.

Are atrocities being committed?

Yes.

Can we say conclusively who is committing them all?

The Arab League observer mission (not that it carries much gravitas, when tyrants from equally abhorrent murderous neighbouring states are doing the observing) stated it is not conclusive who is perpetrating the acts of terror in Syria. If we believe NATO and effectively the US is on the ground in Syria in some capacity, could they be responsible for some of them?

The cases of full Western invention are being made, with the now well worn ‘we cannot stand idly by’ argument that “The West” should provide the opposition with special forces training of the kind that was provided in Libya

The policy for Syria is being developed in America, of that there should be no doubt.

Therefore it’s probably best to leave you with the cold hearted realism of the realpolitik espoused by neo con and “Israel firster” Charles Krauthammer. In a recent op-ed piece in The Washington Post the game plan for regime change in Syria and external intervention were made all too startlingly clear:

“His (Assad) fall would deprive Iran of an intra-Arab staging area and sever its corridor to the Mediterranean. Syria would return to the Sunni fold. Hezbollah, Tehran’s agent in Lebanon, could be next, withering on the vine without Syrian support and Iranian material. Hamas would revert to Egyptian patronage.  At the end of this causal chain, Iran, shorn of key allies and already reeling from economic sanctions over its nuclear program, would be thrown back on its heels”

He continued:

“Force the issue. Draw bright lines. Make clear American solidarity with the Arab League against a hegemonic Iran and its tottering Syrian client. In diplomacy, one often has to choose between human rights and strategic advantage. This is a rare case where we can advance both — so long as we do not compromise with Russia or relent until Assad falls.”

Does it make it clearer now?

It’s Iran and it always has been about Iran.

After the illegal invasion of Iraq for the purpose of regime change, “The West” quickly learnt that the blowback on their own shores from a restive Muslim population would cause immense problems. So how do “The West” engineer regime change now?

In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, General Wesley Clark, the retired four-star American General and former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, stated that he was privy to discussions that described how:

“we’re going to take out seven countries, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.”

The conditions for a similar strategy of tension are being unrolled in Lebanon, with a cargo containing huge amounts of US dollars, guns, special passports and credit cards having been seized upon arrival in Beirut this morning.

Understand that whilst our politicians in the UK pontificate about the ever worsening condition of the Syrian people, the real drivers for the resolution come from the Americans.

They are not concerned about the slaughter in Syria or anywhere else in the region. Their murderous intent of reshaping the region is polished with the veneer of respectability afforded by the useful idiots in the FCO and the media right here in the UK.

For me, the motives are clear, and that’s why I will not support any UNSC resolutions bought forward by America and her cronies.

About these ads

2 Comments

Filed under 'Muslim' Tyrant Watch, 4GW, Foreign Policy, Manufacturing Consent, Middle East, Terrorism, Western Hypocrisy

2 responses to “Syria, UN Veto’s & Western Foreign Policy

  1. javed yousaf

    The Syrian leaderships are heartless sons of bitches. They should be condemned wholeheartedly, but not by hypocrites like the USA government and their mass media. The BBC showed some shocking scenes on their prime time news channel. I wish they had done the same when people were being massacred wholesale in Fallujah, or indeed in Gaza. Too many hypocrites in this world. This kind of shit is wrong, wrong wrong whoever does it. China and Russia are no longer willing to let the USA continue to be the sole big player. Now there’s another unexpected consequence of the last 10 years of ill advised imperial adventure in the middle east. And of course Obama’s stupid comments about turning the military machine to look eastwards at the emerging economic super powers. Well China and Russia are coming out to play now. Try flying a few drones over their airspace, or killing their scientists and see what happens! My sympathies are with the innocent victims of this imperial hubris. The USA has succeeded in making the UN redundant it just isn’t a rubber stamp for USA foreign policy any more.

  2. Until the outbreak of World War II, Western countries were still enmeshed in their history of colonialism, racial discrimination and outside aggression. The widespread national liberation and democratic movements across the world following the end of World War II quickly resulted in the collapse of the West’s long-held moral excuses that were used to justify their past crimes and “use of force” and it turned to concepts, such as “humanitarian intervention” and “human rights are superior to sovereignty”, as the main means to regain their lost moral dominance and maintain their dwindling domain of influence throughout the world.

    By using abstract terms and their own criteria to define the concept of human rights, Western countries have attempted to completely separate human rights from sovereignty and then cause conflicts in specific countries and regions from which they can benefit and achieve their own political purposes.

    Human rights in individual countries can only be realized and protected in a sovereign country, when there are still strong and weak countries and when hegemonic activities and power politics still prevail.

    A country belongs to all its people and the country’s sovereignty is the concentrated embodiment of its collective human rights. The existence of sovereign nations constitutes the foundation of the current international society and under this precondition human rights conditions worldwide have made continuous advancements.

    In the absence of sovereignty, a country will have no ability and means to protect the human rights of its people. From Kosovo to Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, under the pretext of “human rights being superior to sovereignty”, Western countries have chosen to use guns and bombs against the governments of these countries to realize their own ulterior motives. But the use of force has failed to bring the people in these countries improved human rights, on the contrary it has plunged them deep into humanitarian disasters and cost many their lives.

    Protecting human rights is a universal pursuit of people of all countries across the world. But if this issue is rigged by a handful of countries as the excuse to interfere with other countries’ internal affairs, the human rights of these countries and their people are ignored.

    Military interventions under the guise of moral slogans are in essence a kind of neo-colonialism.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s