Tara McCormack writes:
Russia is ‘weaponising’ Syrian refugees. So says senior
NATO commander Philip Breedlove. US senator John McCain said exactly the same
thing at the Munich Security Conference a couple of weeks ago.
But apart from
headlines in the Financial Times (which
is doing its best to fearmonger about a new Cold War), this claim from John
‘I’ve never seen a war I didn’t like’ McCain was not that widely reported.
Hence why it’s been repeated by Breedlove in order to bolster NATO’s flagging
purpose.
McCain and Breedlove claim that
Russian (and Syrian government) bombing in Syria is part of a wider plot to
destabilise Europe by sewing divisions in Europe and NATO.
That such a
preposterous claim could be so uncritically reported shows how accepting
Western media are of anti-Russian propaganda.
Firstly, the refugees stranded in
Europe consist of many nationalities, though Syrians are certainly in the
majority.
Kosovo has produced the third-highest number of refugees after Syria
and Afghanistan, and given that it’s an EU protectorate and NATO bombed it to
independence, who is doing the weaponising there?
Secondly, Russia began
bombing in September 2015, which was well after the refugee crisis had begun.
The argument is that US, French and
Saudi bombs don’t hurt people or make them want to run away, but Russian and
Syrian bombs are killers.
This has been a standard trope rolled out without
comment by much of the Western media, and reflects the disgraceful lack of
honest and independent analysis of our own foreign policy.
How do we know that, prior to
Russian bombing, Syrian people didn’t welcome coalition bombs destroying their
houses, livelihoods and killing their children?
The US-led coalition started
bombing Syria in September 2014, at which time the already-existing refugee crisis
was worsening.
According to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR),
380,000 refugees had already arrived in Europe before Russian bombing started
in September 2015.
This was up from 216,000 for the whole of 2014.
There are a number of reasons behind the Syrian refugee
crisis: the brutal Syrian war waged between Assad and anti-government forces
(funded by the US, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States); the takeover by
ISIS of parts of Syria; and bombs raining down on civilians from the US,
France, the Gulf States, Russia and the Syrian government.
But perhaps the most important
factor in the refugee crisis is the continued failure to formulate a collective
European policy.
This has been further exacerbated by various factors: Angela
Merkel’s unilateral invitation to all Syrian refugees in the absence of any
European agreement; individual European states’ refusal to resettle refugees;
the EU’s reluctance to help Greece; expectations that Serbia, Macedonia and
Greece would become vast holding camps; and migrants’ unwillingness to remain
in Turkey because of its policies; the list goes on.
This anti-Russian sentiment is part
of a big propaganda push from some Western political elites.
As Scott Radnitz writes in Foreign Policy, there are wild
accusations being made that Russia is funding everything from anti-fracking
protests to Eurosceptic parties.
Is Putin behind the British referendum on EU
membership? Is Michael Gove receiving Moscow gold?
Does the Kremlin have a hand in the rise of Poland’s Law and Justice Party (a serious headache for the EU), or Orban’s election in Hungary?
Does the Kremlin have a hand in the rise of Poland’s Law and Justice Party (a serious headache for the EU), or Orban’s election in Hungary?
While Russia is known to have loaned some money
to Marine Le Pen, it can hardly be held solely responsible for Front National’s electoral
success.
The crises blighting the EU are the
products of internal political dynamics.
A lack of democracy and a retreat from
popular sovereignty have given rise to left- and right-wing populisms like the Front National, Podemos, the
Five Star Movement and Jeremy Corbyn’s rise to the leadership of the Labour
Party.
These outsider parties and individuals represent a feeling of
disenfranchisement from mainstream political processes.
As Radnitz points out,
many of Europe’s right-wing populist parties are not ‘bought’ by Moscow, but
share conservative traditional values which are seen to be under attack within
the EU.
Whether that
be bilateral meetings between Putin and Orban, talking with German politicians
about ending sanctions or German press articles that are critical of Merkel.
Apparently, it’s all part of Russia’s brilliant new strategy of ‘hybrid war’ –
the latest masterstroke from the Kremlin. Or, as we used to call it, meeting
other governments in pursuit of your interests.
One of the interesting things going
on in the US at the moment is a disagreement within the political and military
establishment about America’s relationship with Russia.
In the recent
congressional hearing on security threats, secretary of state John Kerry stated
that Russia has been acting as a partner to the US in major initiatives, such
as the Syrian ceasefire, and that violent extremism presented a far bigger
security threat to the US than Russia.
This is in stark contrast to other
sections of the elite who are pushing for Russia to be painted as Public Enemy
No1.
Aside
from producing some entertainingly ridiculous propaganda, demonising Russia
works entirely against the EU’s interests.
Discrediting right- and left-wing
populist parties as being nothing but Kremlin puppets is a bad strategy. It
allows the EU to dismiss these insurgent parties and continue fiddling while
Rome burns.
The EU’s problems are nothing to do with Russia. Only the EU and
its member states can resolve them.
No comments:
Post a Comment