"Facing it, always facing it, that's the way to get through. Face it."-Joseph Conrad.
Thursday, 23 August 2012
A Brief Note on the Syrian Conflict
matters. The BBC have constantly called the Syrian insurgents "rebels" instead
of insurgents which is, at least a neutral term for those trying to
overthrow the Assad regime. However, the insurgents in Iraq-some associated with
Al Qaida and Sunni militias-were not termed rebels in fighting against
the US backed government there. It is about time this Orwellian
doublethink was challenged.
Sunni fundamentalists have
tended to be backed by the UK and US where their geopolitical interests
are at stake. The policy of using Sunni militias as proxies dates back
to the 1980s in Afghanistan and continued in the 1990s to remove regimes
opposed to Western interests in Azerbaijan, Bosnia, Kosovo and then
Afghanistan ( again in 2001 ) and Libya.
US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton is on record as stating that the USA was giving help with communications equipment and "humanitarian aid" of $25 million, a token gesture that can achieve nothing as it is the ratcheting up of the civil war through backing one side and not a ceasefire that is causing the violence to be increased and not diminished
Backing Sunni fundamentalist militias is simply a means to an end as it is
here again in Syria as it was elsewhere. The fact these militias are using terrorism and
ethnic cleansing against Syrian Christians seems not to be a
True, it is primarily the Saudis who are funding the Sunni
insurgents and the West would not go against that as Saudi Arabia is a key
ally in the region, as well as a large oil supplier and client for
billions of dollars of arms exports from the USA and UK.
By comparison, China and Russia, though primarily concerned with their Great Power interests in the Middle East no less than the West, at least actually seem concerned with
security as opposed to yet another attempt to engineer the outcome of
unpredictable violent events.
The trio of Western states on the Permanent UN Security Council-the USA, France and the UK are led by inept politicians who are
incapable of learning from history-unless, of course, they either do not
care or lack any wise diplomatic awareness of the stakes involved.
The reality is that Saudi Arabia is the lynchpin of
the Western Trio's diplomacy in the Middle East: that is, to shore up this state and its interests as
a counter to Iranian influence. If the Assad regime falls, the Trio
hope that they can cut off the aid given to Hizbollah in Lebanon in
alliance with Iran: that will cut off Iranian influence to the West no
less than the hemming of it's influence to the East via control over
Afganistan will curtail it there.
With Iran encircled and surrounded, the Trio can
then start to work to get rid of the regime in Tehran and, it is
assumed, destroy the power of Hizbollah.
Unfortunately, it could have
the opposite effect: it will lead to regime collapse in Syria, ethnic
cleansing and sectarian conflict and the unleashing of ethnic and
religious struggles across the borders from Lebanon and Iraq. Not least as the government in Baghdad is Shia dominated.
“The real danger is that we could see a very large-scale civil war in Syria,” he said.
“Because some of the minorities, like the Christians, for instance,
fear that if Assad falls, they’ll suffer the fate of the Christians of
Iraq. And at the same time, they are seen by some of the opponents of
Assad as collaborators with his regime. So there’s been interethnic,
inter-communal violence. And it’s a very, very dangerous situation, but
it could also explode outwardly, joining in Israel, joining in Turkey