Warnings of Al-Qaeda's strength in Syria have
gone unheeded.
Though the hardline Islamist group is gaining a
foothold there, Washington neocons will not allow it to form a state in
Northern Syria, award-winning blogger Neil Clark tells RT.
His concern that the unity of Syria is under
threat from Al-Qaeda is shared by Fahad Almarsi, a spokesman for the Free
Syrian Army, who told RT that the Islamists will only divide Syria and that the
majority of Syrians do not want them there.
RT: It’s not just about logistics here,
but also some profit as well, as I guess Al-Qaeda is looking for profitable
oil-smuggling routes and weapons supply routes as well?
Neil Clark: Absolutely. It's interesting,
isn’t it, that when President Assad was warning about Al-Qaeda in Syria from
2011 onwards, but the west said he was scaremongering etc. He said that
Al-Qaeda had a foothold in Syria, and now we’re hearing this from the FSA, so
it’s interesting. Those of us who did warn that this would happen were
dismissed as apologists for Assad, apologists for the Syrian government, and
now the west has got to wake up to what’s really going on. And having said
that, I think it’s very important to understand the FSA strategy here - the
Free Syrian Army is very keen to get Western intervention; they have now
changed their strategy and they are saying look, Al-Qaeda are going to take
control here unless you intervene and help us.
RT: Who’s going to buy oil at the end
of the day from Al-Qaeda?
NC: I think it’s very important to
understand that one of the biggest myths in international relations of the last
30 years is that the Western powers are implacably opposed to Al-Qaeda. They
are not. They will support Al-Qaeda in certain areas of the world, Libya for
example, in the Balkans in the 1990’s there were Al-Qaeda linked groups etc.,
if they want to topple a secular regime. And so it’s a myth to think they’re a
big enemy. The biggest aim of Western foreign policy in this region is to
counter Iran and Hezbollah. So I don’t actually think the West will allow an
Al-Qaeda state to exist. However, they’re very happy for Al-Qaeda to work to
topple President Assad.
RT: Regarding the oil again, if they
got more control of it, a hold of it in Syria, how much could it effect world
prices - or would that not be a significant problem?
NC: I don’t think it would be a massive
problem, but having said that I think their strategy has been to use Al-Qaeda
to help topple secular regimes. If it looks if Al-Qaeda might actually get into
power with a state of their own with oil supplies etc., then I think they would
intervene. And I think it’s interesting that the neocons who actually want
intervention in Syria are actually changing their tune here and saying we’ve
got to intervene to help the FSA because otherwise Al-Qaeda will get control
and so-called chemical weapons will end up in Al-Qaeda’s hands, so I think that
the neocons who are looking for any excuse to intervene in Syria will now use
this Al-Qaeda threat to try and get their way.
RT: And of course we started this by
talking about logistics as one of the key things here. Of course the FSA could
find itself trapped on both fronts?
NC: It could, and I think the FSA is in a
very weak position here. The FSA has lost the war basically, and I think now
their last gambit is to say 'look, you’ve got to help us,' and to try to
portray themselves as the good guys, the moderate rebels. But they are not at
all - they have committed some terrible crimes in Syria, terrible terrorist
atrocities, so I think it’s a kind of a false division to say there are bad
rebels and good rebels. The fact is that elections are due in Syria in 2014 and
there’s no excuse for anyone to be using violence now for achieving political
change.
RT: If they lose their foothold, if a
terrorist state is established in the country, surely that’s a cue for foreign
intervention of some kind, no?
NC: Well, absolutely - and this could be
the end game because now, the Western powers hope, obviously because they
thought that by now President Assad would have been toppled, he hasn’t because
he’s got too much support in the country, so I think the neocon strategy now is
to use Al-Qaeda as they have done for years to justify intervention, and I
think this is the danger now. If it looks like an Al-Qaeda state will be
established, the neocons will be putting pressure on president Obama to say
'look, you’ve got now to invade Syria to stop Al-Qaeda,' when all the time it’s
actually been Western policy which has helped Al-Qaeda to get into this
position in the first place.
Fahad Almarsi, a spokesman and manager of
communications for the Free Syrian Army (FSA), told RT that he believes the
warning of an Al-Qaeda state is credible and that the unity of Syria is under
threat as never before. While criticizing Russia for supporting the Assad
regime, he also pointed the finger at other world powers, who he didn’t mention
by name, for supporting the Islamist extremists operating in Syria.
“It only helps the regime [of President Assad]
to divide Syria. These Islamists and terrorists are supported by some regional
and major states in the world. We are asking why financial and military support
has reached those Islamists, but the FSA doesn’t get those arms.”
“The Russians have the key to the solution -
if Moscow wants to keep the unity of Syria, it cooperates with other states
there will be a solution.” he added.
He also said that the FSA wants to keep Syria
united and was only interested in a victory for the Syrian people.
No comments:
Post a Comment