Some days ago I wrote a piece shedding doubt on the mainstream narrative of these events, highlighting particular evidence that seemed to show that the chemical attack, although it indeed took place, was likely committed by the opposition forces in an attempt to blame the attack on Assad. Since I have posted that article, I have already been called an Assad sympathizer and accused of spreading pro-Assad propaganda.
In a situation that is so emotionally intense for those involved or with a personal interest at stake, be it the life of a loved one in Syria or religious belief, it is natural to revert to a dual thinking and polarize the conflict between two base camps: in this case those who support Assad, and those who support the Rebels - and if you believe the issue is more complex than this dichotomy are not on either side of this spectrum, or are asking questions which are uncomfortable to either stance, you are immediately labelled an agent of the opposing group. If you question the mainstream media reports of chemical attacks by Assad you will be accused by the supporters of the Rebels of being an apologist for the thousands of victims killed by the Syrian security forces; if you question Assad's conduct and its killing of thousands of civilians by the Syrian army, you get accused by his supporters of being an apologist for Islamist proxy opposition groups supported and armed by a cocktail of foreign powers including France, Germany, Turkey, United Kingdom, U.S.A. and a number of Gulf states and who are bound to serve their interests if they get to power.
At the same time, many in leftist circles have heard the arguments from their comrades and peers in why they would support Assad irregardless of the crimes he has committed. This irrational discourse is based on Assad's secular track record which makes him more palatable to western leftist circles, as well as his professed (although largely unsubstantiated) resistance against Western imperialism and U.S. hegemony. These people forget that Assad has, for years, been instrumental for Washington's and Israel's policies in the region, achieving a relative pacification over the occupied Golan Heights with Israel, and aiding the United States in extraordinary rendition programmes, among some. The simple fact that Assad is now in the cross-hair of international hegemons rather than besides it as it was in the past is sufficient for many self-stated leftists to immediately support Assad's struggle.
Rarely in the mind of such people the consideration that there may be a third perspective is consolidated. In the absence of absolute proof on either side (or, rather, the equal brutality and blood-thirst of all sides), those who are not emotionally and personally invested and have no option but to observe the situation at a distance have the duty to shed light on this third perspective irregardless and independently of the other two positions - that of being against imperialist foreign western intervention which, if you live in one of the countries involved, is a duty to any self- respecting revolutionary leftist.
The fact that the revolution has long been hijacked by proxy group is a fact know to many for a long time, and the fact that these groups greatly outnumber the local non-Al-Quaeda affiliated groups has also been reported on numerous time. There are many research papers outlining the relationship between extremist Islamic groups and the western powers and intelligence agencies who finance and support them (who, ironically, are 'fighting' the same groups in Mali). There is also extensive and compelling documentation that the U.S. has been planning a regime change in Syria since as long as 20 years ago. Although the conflict with these groups was put mostly on the back-burner by the FSA and other opposition groups because of their tactical incapability to refuse the help of organizations like Jabat Al-Nusra and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant should they had wanted to continue the armed struggle. Since a few months, however, the situation has drastically changed and has become a power struggle between the Islamist western proxy factions and the more independent local factions such as the FSA. In essence, the Al-Quaeda affiliated groups have decided that "It's Takeover time!" and have started openly hunting and killing high ranking members of the FSA and other affiliated rebel groups.
The first significant confrontation took place in 2012, when the Farouq Battalions – now a main recipient of foreign aid through the SMC (Syrian Military Council) – cracked down on a fringe Islamist faction that had set up camp on the Turkish border. In 2013 the conflicts began to intensify turning out in what some people refer to as "all out war" between the two groups, and which resulted with members of the ISIL murdering members of the FSA, including Fadi al-Qash, the head of a FSA battalion and his two brothers. In July 2013 FSA battalion chief Kamal Hamami was murdered at an Islamic State checkpoint in Latakia's rural northern highlands, while in the month of August there have been videos released that would confirm similar reports.
"They [foreign nations] fund the Islamist reactionary forces to transform the Syrian revolution into a sectarian war. The victory of the revolution in Syria and its spread to the region would be a threat to their own regimes.
We must not forget also that the tensions between FSA groups and Islamist forces of Jabhat al Nusra and ISIL have expanded recently." - Joseph Daher, member of the Syrian Revolutionary Left Current.
It is not surprising that the genuine opposition forces, and those sympathizing with them, would see any sort of intervention in their favour as welcome. It is the nature of the field soldier to think in the short term, and not necessarily about the long term implications that the aid is likely to cause. Many on the revolutionary front and those supporting them do not realize that the implications of a US/NATO led offensive are bound to be disproportionately disastrous as has been witnessed by countless other nations. The collective memory of the general public (including much of the left) seems to shorten when it comes to remembering the tragedies that unfolded thanks to foreign (mostly U.S.) intervention in places like former Yugoslavia, Guatemala, Cuba, Venezuela, Ecuador, Brazil, Chile, Argentina, the contras in Iran and Nicaragua, Honduras (since 1895) Afghanistan (1989 and 2001), Libya, Iraq, Panama, Mexico, El Salvador, the proxy war and genocide in Rwanda, the proxy Congolese civil war not to mention the catastrophic US/NATO/UN led interventions in Haiti, and hundreds more...
Many also seem to forget that this incident fits the modus operandi previously utilized by the United States to justify, or attempt to, their military intervention. When in American government gave chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein in the 1980s with foreknowledge that they would be used on Iran and on his own Kurdish population, the Reagan and Bush I administrations attempted to blame Iran for the chemical weapons attack on Iraq’s Kurds. This could very likely be the situation now, as the evidence is mounting that Assad was not indeed responsible for the latest alleged attack with chemical weapons. A similar incident which should be fresher in our collective memory should be the utilization of the excuse of weapons of mass destruction, and specifically chemical weapons (which were never found), to galvanize the American people into enthusiastically supporting the bombing of Iraq and the ousting of Saddam Hussein in 2003.
Foreign intervention is not the answer, as it will not likely to put an end or even slow down the killing in Syria, but is instead likely to fuel more sectarian struggles and conflicts in the long term. However, it is not to be discounted that some of the small genuine revolutionary cells which continue to fight against Assad have acknowledged this. In a statement, the Revolutionary Left Current in Syria have admitted that "Our revolution has no sincere ally, except the popular revolutions of the region and of the world and of all the militants struggling against regimes of ignorance and servitude and exploitation." while another of its members has clearly states that ""...the Free Syrian Army (FSA) completely lacks any real material and financial support. The Islamists reactionary forces such as Jabhat al Nusra and the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) are being well-funded by some Gulf countries.". It is only the hope of most other revolutionary leftists across the globe that the revolutionary groups in Syria realize that this is really the case and that the the genuine parts of the resistance will be able to purge their movement of the proxy foreign interventionists within their ranks. the only problem is that the situation has become so complex that it is now nearly impossible to identify the genuine and un-compromised groups (if there are any still) and their counterparts.
Many also seem to forget that this incident fits the modus operandi previously utilized by the United States to justify, or attempt to, their military intervention. When in American government gave chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein in the 1980s with foreknowledge that they would be used on Iran and on his own Kurdish population, the Reagan and Bush I administrations attempted to blame Iran for the chemical weapons attack on Iraq’s Kurds. This could very likely be the situation now, as the evidence is mounting that Assad was not indeed responsible for the latest alleged attack with chemical weapons. A similar incident which should be fresher in our collective memory should be the utilization of the excuse of weapons of mass destruction, and specifically chemical weapons (which were never found), to galvanize the American people into enthusiastically supporting the bombing of Iraq and the ousting of Saddam Hussein in 2003.
As reports circulate that the United States has finalized plans to move its navy into position to launch cruise missiles on Syria, those who are calling for a foreign military intervention must remember a few key additional factors. Firstly is that it is not guaranteed to end the bloodshed. On the contrary, looking at the enormous civilian casualty reports from both Libya and Iraq, it is very likely that the conflict will directly cause a huge number of civilian casualties in Syria too. This is not counting the very likely possibility (just like in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya) that the armed conflict will not cease but instead become a sectarian civil war amongst the already conflicting parties, and a civil war waged against the puppet government that is bound to be installed should the intervention be successful. In such case, the casualties over the decades through which this conflict has the potential to extent is astounding.
Secondly, it must be clarified that this action would indeed be ILLEGAL according to the UN charter and international law, which is often invoked by those who are attempting to call for military intervention. The UN Charter clearly states that:
"All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” - UN Charter, Article 2, Chapter 4.
Foreign intervention is not the answer, as it will not likely to put an end or even slow down the killing in Syria, but is instead likely to fuel more sectarian struggles and conflicts in the long term. However, it is not to be discounted that some of the small genuine revolutionary cells which continue to fight against Assad have acknowledged this. In a statement, the Revolutionary Left Current in Syria have admitted that "Our revolution has no sincere ally, except the popular revolutions of the region and of the world and of all the militants struggling against regimes of ignorance and servitude and exploitation." while another of its members has clearly states that ""...the Free Syrian Army (FSA) completely lacks any real material and financial support. The Islamists reactionary forces such as Jabhat al Nusra and the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) are being well-funded by some Gulf countries.". It is only the hope of most other revolutionary leftists across the globe that the revolutionary groups in Syria realize that this is really the case and that the the genuine parts of the resistance will be able to purge their movement of the proxy foreign interventionists within their ranks. the only problem is that the situation has become so complex that it is now nearly impossible to identify the genuine and un-compromised groups (if there are any still) and their counterparts.
0 comments:
Post a Comment