Hands Off Syria

Tomasz Pierscionek writes:

A recent front-page headline in the London Evening Standard declared: "Cameron: We must act over Syria gas attacks." The accompanying article conveyed the British Prime Minister's support for the "candid assessment" performed by US intelligence services which "proved" Syrian President Bashar al-Assad had used "chemical weapons … against his own people."

In the same article Washington's "humanitarian" aspirations were juxtaposed by the more demure comments of a senior adviser to Russian President Vladimir Putin who commented that the dossier compiled by US spooks "does not look convincing." In recent weeks Russia has come under fire from the US and its allies for its misgivings about Western intervention in Syria. These powers, eager for further military involvement in the Middle East, cynically accuse Russia of having a personal interest in "backing" Assad, pointing to a small Russian naval base at the Syrian port of Tarsus.

According to the Transnational Institute, part of the Institute for Policy Studies based in Washington DC, whereas in 2009 the US could boast having "some 1,000 military bases and installations" spanning the globe, Russia is thought to host around 25 military installations outside its borders, all of which are in former Soviet republics with the exception of the lone site in Syria. One also wonders whether Russia, China and other nations feel threatened surrounded as they are by hundreds of Nato military bases housing thousands of Nato troops, some very close to their sovereign borders.

It is unsurprising that the upper echelons of Russia's leadership, or anyone else for that matter, should question the veracity of the most recent dossier to be churned out by the US secret services. Anyone old enough to remember the invasion of Vietnam will recall Nixon's famous "domino effect" which theorised that if the people of Vietnam were allowed to freely elect "communist dictators" the "free world" would soon be fighting the reds here, there and everywhere.

Fast forward to recent memory and post-September 11 2001 George Bush, Tony Blair and the neocons preached about the threat of dirty bombs and mushroom clouds laying waste to major cities. Remember the forged papers purporting that Iraqi agents tried to obtain yellowcake, a uranium ore, from Niger, alongside the "evidence" that Saddam Hussein could unleash his weapons of mass distraction upon an unsuspecting Europe and north America within 45 minutes.

The faulty intelligence embroiled numerous, mostly Western, powers in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and killed, maimed and displaced millions. Sectarian conflicts were also sparked. Another side effect was a surge in terrorism by the Islamist fundamentalists that were supposedly the raison d'etre for invasion. The most recent foray into Libya in 2011, which was sold as essential to remove a dictator killing his own people, has led to the disintegration of that country into fiefdoms led by warlords, groups that sympathise with al-Qaida and God knows who else.

The military hardware thrown into the conflict by certain Middle Eastern states has led to the arming of al-Qaida-affiliated groups such as the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, which in turn caused instability to spread across Libya's porous borders into surrounding countries such as Algeria and Mali. Now British intelligence reports that the vast arms caches present across Libya are serving as "Tesco" for any belligerent group.

A quote from an article in the Sunday Times underscores the severity of the situation. "It is understood MI6 estimates there are a million tons of weaponry in Libya - more than the entire arsenal of the British army - and much of it is unsecured." If one didn't know any better, it would not be difficult to imagine Nato having an agenda creating discord in mineral-rich regions of the globe.

Nevertheless, whether through stupidity or scheming, Nato powers can ill-afford to destabilise yet another country in an already volatile region. The casus belli doing the rounds at present proclaims that Assad's forces have used chemical weapons against his people. There is no firm evidence to support this. When several months ago Obama warned Assad that the use of chemical weapons would be a "red line," the traversal of which would invite US intervention, I began to wonder how long it would take before "evidence" of said chemical weapons would suddenly appear.

Conversely, Carla Del Ponte, a member of the UN independent commission of inquiry on Syria, recently suggested that the Syrian rebels, lauded as "the good guys" by some authorities within Nato member states, had used sarin gas against the Syrian people. While Assad has undoubtedly caused great pain and suffering to his people and bears the responsibility for any war crimes committed by his forces, the Syrian people alone, and no foreign agent, ought to be the ones who decide the fate of their country and leader.

The "defensive" alliance known as Nato passed its sell-by date following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the existence of which long provided a handy excuse for militarisation and war games. It is also worth pointing out the easily discernible reality that Nato, via the command of its main player the US, cares not about civilians and their oppressors. An expanding sphere of influence is the top priority - an indirect yet clear message to Moscow, Beijing, Tehran and others not in the club.

The accusations of chemical weapons and calls for arming the Syrian rebels or creating a "no-fly zone" come suspiciously hot on the heels of a number of victories by Assad's forces, who have in recent months succeeded in recapturing a significant amount territory from rebels armed and funded by Saudi Arabia, the UAE and others.

Another statistic that throws a spanner in the works of those advocating supporting the rebels emerged following research by the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, based in London, which calculated that of the more than 96,000 individuals killed in the Syrian conflict so far, over 43 per cent are accounted for by security forces fighting on behalf of the Syrian government. It was also reported that over 2,000 foreign fighters have been killed fighting with the rebels.

The figures suggest a two-sided conflict as opposed to a one-sided bloodbath under the guise of which it is being sold. Undoubtedly a number of Syrians fighting Assad's forces have legitimate grievances against the regime and genuinely wish for the birth of a more democratic nation. However, the coalition comprised of the Free Syrian Army, the Syrian National Council and numerous other groups included a significant proportion of unsavoury individuals, such as those belonging to the al-Qaida-linked al-Nusra front.

The quick fix of supporting the enemy of an enemy, the forces of the Mojahedin against the Soviet army, failed in Afghanistan. Sensible commentators have stated from the outset of the conflict that a peaceful solution must mean getting all parties around a table. The US-led approach of excluding Assad from any negotiated solution and the refusal of sections of the Syrian rebels to attend peace talks in Geneva prolongs the stalemate and adds succour to the cause of those calling for an escalation in the conflict.

Let's hope Western leaders undergo their metaphorical Damascene conversion before it is too late and we witness full-scale war in the Middle East. Or perhaps that has always been the aim of the game.