End the Lie

The Syria debacle – part I

Decrease Font Size Increase Font Size Text Size Print This Page

By End the Lie

I have been writing about Syria and the attempts at pushing a foreign intervention on the nation for months now (see the bottom of the article for a partial list of previous works on the subject).

I believe it has become such a multifaceted and important issue that I must devote a series to covering the developments as I have done with Iran and the global growth of the United States’ and NATO’s hegemony.

As the days go by the tensions between the West and Syria only get more pronounced, especially when it comes to the increasingly vocal opposition from Russia.

Russia’s opposition is far from something new. They were one of the first nations to come to Syria’s defense and protect – or at least attempt to protect them – from foreign meddling.

This has incarnated in many forms, some overt and military in nature – like the delivery of anti-aircraft missile systems and most recently a Russian naval group docking in the Syrian port of Tartus – others political, like the statements of the head of the Russian Security Council, Nikolai Patrushev.

The political rhetoric has become increasingly heated and firm, and today’s news is no different.

The President of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, and the Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin reportedly had a phone conversation in which they “affirmed the need to defend the independence and [sovereignty] of Syria and Iran from the siege and interference in their internal affairs carried out by colonialist countries,” according to Syria’s SANA.

This is just another affirmation of Russia’s staunch opposition to any foreign intervention in Syria and Iran which is indeed a real threat, despite any assurances otherwise coming from the wholly untrustworthy Western establishment.

The Venezuelan Foreign Ministry said that Chavez and Putin also discussed the strategic ties between the two nations in the fields of finance, the economy, commercial and industrial matters and military cooperation as well.

What remains to be seen is how Russia will actually step in on Syria’s behalf if the press to intervene in Syria continues.

Russia and China have both blocked increased sanctions when they were brought to the United Nations Security Council, but it is unclear exactly what they would do if the West ignores the writing on the wall and conducts another intervention like in Libya.

Russia has made their military presence in the region very well-known and their transfer of advanced military equipment underlines their position.

China, on the other hand, is a bit of a more unknown variable in this equation.

They have repeatedly voiced their distaste with the Western attempts at intervening in Syrian domestic affairs and blocked new sanctions, but it is unclear if China would take up arms in defense of Syria if it came down to such a situation.

If Russia were to take action and come under threat from the Arab League, NATO or the West as a whole, I think it is only logical to assume that China very well might come to Russia’s aid.

The Arab League has had a very interesting role in the Syrian conflict, given that most leaders of Arab League states are little more than Western puppets.

The League’s observer mission has been characterized as a failure in some quarters, and I found the entire situation quite ironic given the presence of a general accused of creating the brutal “janjaweed,” which was responsible for some of the worst atrocities during the Darfur genocide, in the Arab League’s observer force.

Yesterday China’s Xinhua reported that the Syrian Foreign Ministry has totally rejected Qatari Emir’s suggestion of dispatching Arab troops into Syria, supposedly to help curb the violence.

This is hardly a stupid move on Syria’s part, given that Qatar is now openly admitting that their forces were running most of the ground operations for the rebels in Libya.

Knowing this, it is only logical to think that the Qatari forces would not, in fact, act to help stop the violence but instead encourage it and run operations for the armed opposition in order to enact regime change.

Ultimately, the whole uprising is about regime change, as the opposition has made it clear time and time again that they will not consider negotiations with President Bashar al-Assad nor any option that does not involve Assad being removed from power completely.

The Syrian Foreign Ministry stated that they absolutely reject any calls like the ones coming from Qatar as it could not only make the situation worse but also set the precedent for a greater foreign intervention in Syria’s domestic affairs.

Of course, al Jazeera, the Qatari state-funded propaganda house which operates under the guise of anti-Western alternative news (laughable though the claim may be, many consider it indeed to be such an outlet) would utilize their position to push for a greater intervention just as they did in Libya.

Pointing to the failure of the Arab League’s observers to stop the violence in Syria, Qatar Emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al Thani stated that he was in favor of deploying Arab troops into Syria.

Statements like this are regularly made, usually claiming that such a move would stop or at least decrease the violence.

Based on what we’ve seen in Libya, I think it is hardly an accurate assumption to make. Bringing in armed foreign troops to solve a domestic conflict is hardly conducive to peace.

In making the statement, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al Thani made himself the first Arab leader to openly call for military intervention in Syria, saying, “For such a situation … some troops should go to stop the killing.”

Once again, this is operating on the nonsensical assumption that for some reason bringing armed troops into a conflict would not increase violence but in fact decrease it.

We saw how well that worked in Libya, not to mention Iraq, both of which are still rife with violence and civil strife.

The Syrian Foreign Ministry’s statement was quite strongly worded, saying that Syria “rejects all kinds of foreign intervention in its affairs, under any title, and would confront any attempt to infringe upon Syria’s sovereignty and integrity of its territories.”

What exactly they mean by “confront” isn’t quite clear but I believe it is safe to assume that they mean they would meet military intervention with military confrontation in hopes that Russia and perhaps China would come to their aid.

Syria also stated that while they are agreeing to stick to the Arab League’s plan, they ask for Arab nations and the Arab League as a whole to make an effort “to stop all instigating campaigns and media mobilization that aim to ramp up the situation in Syria.”

I believe this to be a not-so-subtle jab at Qatar which has used its propaganda arm to shape the narrative throughout the so-called Arab Spring since the beginning.

The statement also said that Arab states should assist Syria in blocking the movement of weapons into Syria in order to “reinforce stability and security that would pave the way for a constructive national dialogue that aims to find a political solution to the crisis in Syria.”

Unfortunately, it seems this hope is a bit misguided, as the Syrian opposition – especially the armed insurgent group the Free Syrian Army – have repeatedly stated that they have no interest in “a constructive national dialogue” nor a political solution unless it involves complete regime change.

The Arab League’s monitors began their mission in Syria on December 26, 2011 and they are due to issue an assessment on January 21.

Contrary to the Western narrative, the Syrian government states that the violence in Syria is being incited by terrorists and foreign-backed armed gangs, which is not entirely untrue as the establishment media makes out.

Indeed the United States has been busted funding anti-government propaganda stations which were beamed into Syria via satellite.

The United States’ ambassador to Syria has also openly met with opposition leadership, a move which elicited a violent reaction from the Syrian people.

According to Syrian government reports, over 2,000 army and security personnel have been killed during the uprising.

The Free Syrian Army, for one, has openly bragged about attacking government forces, even blowing up government transport vehicles.

The United Nations has estimated the death toll to be over 5,000 although their numbers are based largely – if not entirely – upon the unverified reports of so-called “activists” and “human rights groups” which have dubious intentions.

While NATO has repeatedly denied that they are working towards a no-fly zone over Syria along with so-called “humanitarian corridors” or “buffer zones” along the borders, Russia today dismissed these claims and insisted that they have information that such tactics are currently being discussed.

“Our partners in the West are in fact discussing a no-fly zone, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told reporters in Moscow, according to Bloomberg.

“There are other ideas being realized, including humanitarian convoys, in the hope they could provoke a response from government forces, border guards,” Lavrov added.

Lavrov also said that Russia would continue to block any attempt at passing a resolution for military intervention in the United Nations Security Council.

He also dismissed the American condemnation of Russian arms shipments to Syria, saying that they were not violating international law by simply supplying Syria with weapons.

Indeed this is true and one must consider the almost laughable hypocrisy displayed by such statements coming from the United States when they are providing the weaponry to Bahrain used to crack down on their own domestic uprising.

Both the European Union and the United States have already put an arms embargo against Syria in place.

The United States’ ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, stated that the U.S. has “very grave concern[s]” about Russian arms being given to the Assad government.

One must wonder if this is because it would allow the government to put up a greater level of resistance to foreign intervention and Western-backed armed insurgent groups currently operating in Syria.

These statements echo ones I reported on previously made by Patrushev which at the time were by far the most heated we had seen.

Patrushev stated that Turkey may play a key role in such an operation and unsurprisingly the same day Turkey along with the United Kingdom and France all denied that such a move was a possibility.

However, the French denial makes very little sense when one remembers that in November Alain Juppe, the French Foreign Minister, suggested that military forces should establish humanitarian corridors to deliver aid in Syria.

Of course the aid would likely only be delivered to anti-Assad groups and insurgents, while pro-government demonstrators and citizens would probably end up getting shafted as they were in Libya.

There is very little we can do at this point to stop another bloody foreign intervention other than spreading the awareness of this campaign.

Please make an effort to share this article and other works by myself and the many others who have been bringing attention to this situation as much as humanly possible.

Only through a greater number of people becoming fully cognizant of the destabilization operation in Syria and other nations which don’t tow the Western line can we hope to stifle these deplorable efforts.

Please, take the less than 30 seconds to share this with your Facebook friends, Twitter followers, or whomever you can on whatever social network/medium you prefer.

Every single person who becomes aware of these issues is another person who can spread the truth and help push back against the wave of disinformation and warmongering.

Recommended related reading (in chronological order, oldest to latest):

3 Responses to The Syria debacle – part I

  1. Anonymous January 18, 2012 at 9:58 PM

    The Syrian people dont’ want intervention! FUKUSA STAY OUT!

  2. Anonymous January 18, 2012 at 11:47 PM

    US and West need to butt out of the ME, LA and start minding their own bees wax!!!

    What about all the homeless people in ur country USA? Do not care about them?

    Sorry English isn’t my best :)

  3. Faddel January 20, 2012 at 5:55 AM

    well, a war is not a good solution,
    but a a large percent of people want the regime to be changed, they want to get rid of Al Assad’s regime, which is one of the worst regimes in the world, they prefer another solution, but they believe the only way to change regime is by force,
    because the regime will lie and fake elections, they will arrest opposition,
    there is no way that Al Assad regime will fix thing, it will only make it worse,

    some Syrians believe that anything is better that the regime


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>