Article published in Katoikos
U.S. Navy Destroyers Launch Strikes on Syria on April 7, 2017 © Google
International
finger-pointing will not bring justice for the chemical attack in Syria. With
tensions running high, only a thorough investigation can reveal the truth and
diffuse the critical situation.
The
recent US airstrikes on the Al-Sha’ayrat airbase were the first time in six
years that Washington has directly interfered in the Syrian conflict, and they
bring to the surface memories of the US invasion of Iraq, in March 2003.
These
warlike actions have triggered a diplomatic row throughout the international
community. The question of who is responsible for the chemical attack in Khan
Sheikhoum, in the district of Idlib, which killed dozens of civilians, remains
open. It also seems clear that US President Donald Trump’s order for the raid
was not only a knee-jerk reaction to the use of chemical weapons but should be
seen in a wider geopolitical context. The blame game has started once again and
the international community is deeply divided and apprehensive as to what will
follow.
United
States
At
the United Nations, on 7 April, US Ambassador Nikki Hailey delivered
an accusatory speech blaming the use of chemical weapons on the Syrian
regime. Hailey claimed: “Assad did this [chemical attack] because he thought he
could get away with it as he knew Russia would have his back.” A different
opinion was expressed by Democratic Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, who
affirmed during a CNN interview that
“what matters here is the evidence and the facts”, after having characterised
Trump’s military airstrikes as “reckless”. In addition, Gabbard acknowledged
being “sceptical” of Assad’s involvement in the chemical attack.
Moreover,
CNN’s Wolf Blitzer asked Gabbard whether she believed the Pentagon’s
claims of having evidence to prove Assad’s culpability. She replied that “they
did not bring up that evidence before Congress, to the American people”,
further adding that “they have not sought authorisation from Congress to launch
this military action on another country”. The Congresswoman accused the US of
for years “waging this war covertly through the CIA” in order to overthrow the
Syrian government.
Meanwhile,
on 11 April, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson went on his first
official visit to Russia with the arduous quest of trying to convince Moscow to
choose sides. Tillerson posed a “friendly ultimatum” to Moscow, requesting that the Russians join the US and “their
like-minded people” or remain on the side of Assad and Iran.
Syria and Russia
Syria’s
Deputy Prime Minister Walid al-Moallem stated on Thursday, 6 April, that the
Syrian Army did not use chemical weapons “even against the terrorists” who
threaten their own people. As for Russian President Vladimir Putin, he considers the US
strikes on Syria to represent “an act of aggression against a sovereign country
violating the norms of international law”. Furthermore, the Russian leader requested theUS to provide the evidence they claim to have: “Show it to UN
observers and at the Security Council,” said Putin.
The
recent veto from Russia at the Security Council on the draft US-UK resolution
to punish Assad for the chemical attack thus came as no surprise.
Europe’s reactions
The US
attack hailed a low-point for trust between Russia and the US, prompting
international reactions that reveal very different positions. Overall in the
West, the main chorus of voices can be heard clinging to the premise that
“Assad must go”.
Germany’s
Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President François Hollande have
attributed responsibility for the attacks to Assad alone. Merkel characterised the US
airstrikes as “understandable”,
given the critical situation in Syria.
The
UK has also stood beside the US, with Prime Minister Theresa May demanding an
investigation into the attack, while defending the view that Assad cannot stay
in power. Yet, British Defence Secretary Michael Fallon stated that
Britain would not be joining airstrikes in Syria. A different
position was adopted by Peter Ford, an ex-UK Ambassador who gave an interview defending
that it is “highly unlikely” that Assad or Russia were behind the chemical
attacks. Ford claims that the Assad regime was aware that it would never have
benefited from such an assault.
If
this form of atrocity seems like an act of desperation, why would the Syrian
regime jeopardise its reputation in a war in which it is has lately gained the
upper hand? Equally odd is the immediate response by the US, just two days
after the incident. A fact that gave the Russian Foreign Ministry a good
opportunity to accuse Washington
of “preparing the airstrikes” long before the attack in Idlib.
At
EU level, Foreign Affairs chief Federica Mogherini was quick to respond to
the chemical attack, saying that “there was a primary responsibility” from the
Syrian government. However, on behalf of the EU, she has condemned the US airstrikes of 6 April. At the same time,
following her recent official visit to Moscow, Mogherini reaffirmed the EU’s
stance on extending Russian sanctions.
NATO’s
Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said in an official statement that “the Syrian regime bears the full responsibility
for this development”. The organisation’s chief further stated that “NATO has
consistently condemned Syria’s continued use of chemical weapons as a clear
breach of international norms and agreements”, even though, so far, no real
proof of such accusations has been made public.
Turkey and the Israeli Connection
Turkey
belittled the US attack as a “cosmetic intervention” that will not serve to
oust Assad. Israel and its security officials, meanwhile, said it was only “highly probable” that the chemical attack was carried out by the Syrian
regime.
There
is another surprising thing about Trump’s swift military response: the policy
that he promptly followed was very much aligned with Hillary Clinton’s
conviction, as revealed by
Wikileaks, that “the best way to help Israel deal with Iran’s growing nuclear
capability is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar
Assad”, an ally of would-be nuclear power Iran.
According
to the Syrian analyst Afraa Dagher,
it was no coincidence that the US chose Al-sha’ayrat airbase as a target: “The
Al-Sha’ayrat airbase was the place from which Syria fired anti-missile Sam
rockets at attacking Israeli warplanes, two weeks ago. Syria downed one of the
four warplanes, hit another and forced the remaining two fighter jets to
quickly fly out of Syrian airspace.” Dagher believes Trump’s actions have sent
a strong message of support to Israel, which continues its illegal occupation
of the Syrian territory of Golan Heights.
Further
research from the Canada-based organisation Global Research has brought to light information stating that the “Pentagon trained Syria’s Al-Qaeda “rebels” in
the use of chemical weapons”. This piece of news was originally published in
the British Daily Mail in January 2013, but it has vanished from the website
after the controversy around the “mysterious” chemical attack followed by the
US airstrikes on Syria. Furthermore, before these airstrikes, Assad gave an interview to
a Cypriot paper, in which he pointedly stated that “to protect Europe from
terrorists, (the West) should stop backing them in Syria”.
Wikileaks revelations with Geopolitical Implications
To
add fuel to this diplomatic conflict, Wikileaks revealed US State Department
plans to destabilise Syria and overthrow the Syrian government as early as
2006. Additional cables revealed the existence of CIA involvement on the ground
in Syria, fomenting mass demonstrations as early as March 2011.
The
leaks suggest direct involvement by the Israeli government in the plans to
provoke civil conflict and sectarianism through partnership with nations like
Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, and Egypt, aimed at demolishing the power
structure in Syria in order to weaken Iran and Hezbollah.
According
to Mint PressNews, “It became then evident that the US, UK, France, Qatar, Saudi
Arabia and Turkey would be jumping on to organise, arm and finance rebels from
the Free Syrian Army.” In 2012, “The Group of Friends of the Syrian People” was
created by these very nations with an agenda to oust Syrian President Bashar
al-Assad. “The plan was to use a number of different factors to create paranoia
within the Syrian government; to push it to overreact, to make it fear a coup,” said Wikileaks
founder Julian Assange.
As
always, global energy supply may shed some light on possible geopolitical
motivations. According to one view by Dmitry Minin,
published in May 2013 by the Strategic Cultural Foundation, based in Moscow, “a
battle is raging over whether pipelines will go toward Europe from east to
west, from Iran and Iraq to the Mediterranean coast of Syria, or take a more
northbound route from Qatar and Saudi Arabia via Syria and Turkey. Having
realised that the stalled Nabucco pipeline, and indeed the entire Southern Corridor,
are backed up only by Azerbaijan’s reserves and can never equal Russian
supplies to Europe or thwart the construction of the South Stream, the West is
in a hurry to replace them with resources from the Persian Gulf. Syria ends up
being a key link in this chain, and it leans in favour of Iran and Russia;
thus, it was decided in the Western capitals that its regime needs to change.”
What’s next?
Russia
and Iran, the alliance behind Assad, have warned that they will
retaliate should red lines be crossed again. While the drums of
war are being banged with increasing intensity and the investigations at a
standstill, with Russia and the West unable or unwilling to agree even on basic facts,
it is crucial to conduct an independent, in-depth investigation in order to
bring to justice those who are responsible for the chemical attacks in Syria.
