Wednesday, August 28, 2013
The Subterfuge of Syrian Chemical Weapons
By Nicola Nasser*
The U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry on this August 26 removed
the sword of the alleged Syrian chemical weapons from its sheath and let the
snow ball of this subterfuge for a military aggression on Syria roll unchecked,
raising the stakes from asking whether “it will happen” to “when” it will
happen, promising that President Barak Obama “will be making an informed
decision about how” to take on Syria and warning not to make a “mistake”
because Obama “believes there must be accountability,” making clear that a U.S.
– led military action is in the making and imminent.
A 20 – member UN independent commission of inquiry, headed
by UN High Representative for Disarmament
Affairs, Angela Kane, and led by
the Swedish scientist and the veteran “inspector” for the UNSCOM and UNMOVIC
inspection regimes in Iraq, Ake Sellstrom, arrived in Damascus on August 24
for a fourteen - day mission to investigate whether or not chemical weapons
were used in Syria.
The fact that this UN mission is in Syria in response to
an official request sent by the Syrian government to the UN Security Council on
March 19, 2013 to investigate the first chemical attack, which was launched then
from the positions of the U.S. – sponsored armed gangs fighting the Syrian
regime on the government – held northern town of Khan al_A’ssal, as well as the
fact that the U.S. for five months opposed such an investigation unless the UN
adopts it as an “inspection” mission all over Syria, are self – evident enough
facts to leave no doubt about the real intentions of the United States.
The timing of the reported chemical attack in the eastern
suburbs of the Syrian capital on August 21 coincided first with the arrival of
the UN investigators in Damascus and second with launching what the Syrian Arab
Army (SAA) codenamed the “Reinforcement of the Shield of the Capital” (RSC)
military operation to root out the armed gangs operating in the same area,
consisting of al-Qaeda – linked Islamists, but mainly of the Jabhat al-Nusra,
which the U.S. listed as a terrorist organization last December.
In view of the progress of the RSC operation, following a
series of other successful operations by the SAA since their strategic
breakthrough in al-Qusayr in June this year, which sealed off the borders with
Lebanon through which rebels used to infiltrate, it was noteworthy that the
American, French, British and German leaders as well as their Turkish, Qatari
and Saudi Arabian allies demanded an immediate “ceasefire,” allegedly to allow
and facilitate the mission of the UN investigators; alternatively, if the RSC
operation did not stop, the Syrian government was accused by them of
“systematically” destroying the evidence.
The Syrian foreign minister
Walid al-Muallem in his press conference in Damascus
The
Declared Goal
The U.S.
– led threats of an imminent military action was the only option left for the
western backers of the rebels in Syria
When the 18th Chairman of the U.S.
Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin E. Dempsey,
before the reportedly chemical attack last week, admitted that the Syrian army
was “gaining momentum,” he did not “think it’ll be sustainable,” not because he
was drawing on the facts on the ground, but most likely because he was privy to what was in store with his
co- decision makers in Washington.
Maintaining a “balance of power” on the ground is a U.S. U.S. cannot
co – host with Russia the
repeatedly postponed Geneva – 2 peace conference
on Syria
Therefore, the U.S. Syria ,
al-Akhdar
al-Ibrahimi, on the same day said that the military solution of the
conflict is “impossible,” but his appeal for a peaceful solution fell on deaf
ears in Washington
Such a strike would only exacerbate the conflict, which al-Ibrahimi
on August 23 said it “is undoubtedly today the biggest threat to peace and
security in the world.”
Would Obama decide on military action to take place while
the UN investigators are still in Syria U.S.
Time will tell however, some say within days, but if it
takes place it will be an insult to the United Nations and the world community
that will further hurt the international credibility of the United States,
which is now pressured into military action as a “face saving move” presumably to
save the credibility of its leader who has drawn publicly a “red line” on the
use of chemical weapons in Syria at least five times during the last year.
Obama
Gives in
Obama, the former professor of constitutional law, who as
recently as August 22 warned in a CNN interview that “we have to take into account considerations” like a “U.N. mandate” supported
by “international law” and “clear evidence,” seems ready now to strike without
any respect to the three factors, which they only can give legitimacy to any
U.S. – led strike against Syria.
The UN mandate and legitimacy cannot be
provided by a decision taken by the NATO, which is led by the U.S. U.S. Syria
from the Arab League, which is now no more than a U.S.
rubber stamp, cannot provide Obama with any credible “Arab” justification for a
war on Syria ; similar approvals
in Libya and Iraq
Moreover, Obama seems even ready to
bypass a U.S.
According to the Los Angeles Times on
Tuesday, Rep. Scott Rigell (R-Va.) has collected nearly three dozen signatures
of House members to a letter he intended to send to the White House to remind
the president that military action without a congressional vote “would violate
the separation of powers that is clearly delineated in the Constitution.”
Obama told CNN: “Sometimes
what we’ve seen is that folks will call for immediate action, jumping into
stuff that does not turn out well, gets us mired in very difficult situations.”
Writing in the Los Angeles Times on August
27, Kathleen Hennessey, Michael A. Memoli and Christi Parsons said that the
poison gas attack in the suburbs of the Syrian capital on August 21 was
“testing” Obama’s views “as
no previous crisis has done;” unfortunately Kerry announced Monday that the
U.S. president has failed this test.
However, Kerry’s statement in his news
conference in Washington Monday, which was described by mainstream media as
“emotional” and “highly charged,” sounded like an official declaration that
Obama had done with whatever “considerations” might prevent him from taking a
decision to strike, even if he risks to get “mired in”
exactly the “very difficult situations” he has been trying to avoid.
It was a
declaration that Obama has at last given in to the warmongers who have been leading
a media blitz that
has been beating the drums of war on Syria
Kerry
Mobilizes Passive Public
On the one
hand, Kerry’s
statement was emotionally highly charged with the intention of defusing a
mounting pressure for action that was exacerbated with the reported chemical
attack in the suburbs of Damascus
On the other, its
emotionality was intended as a prelude to mobilize a passive public opinion for
a possible imminent military action against Syria
Several recent polls showed that the
majority of Americans oppose U.S. U.S. United States
should not intervene in Syria
If Kerry’s intention was to mount
pressure on Syria, the country’s foreign minister Walid al-Muallem on Tuesday declared
Syria will not yield to “blackmail” and its only option is to defend itself with
whatever means are available, some of which will be a “surprise,” he said.
However, Kerry’s statement sounded not a message to Syria
per se as much as it was a message to American, European and Arab warmongers,
who ever since the Syrian crisis erupted have been lobbying his administration
to take action against Syria long before the first chemical attack was launched
from the positions of the U.S. – sponsored armed gangs on Khan al_A’ssal five
months ago.
Investigating
a Forgone Conclusion
In view of the Syrian government’s confirmation of the use
of chemical weapons, Kerry’s statement on Monday that it “is real, that
chemical weapons were used in Syria
Is it not surprising and a waste of time then to send the
UN independent commission of inquiry to investigate a forgone conclusion that
all parties take for granted as a fact!
Kerry quoted Ban Ki - moon
as saying last week that “the U.N. investigation will not determine who used
these chemical weapons, only whether such weapons were used.”
If the investigators’ mandate is only to
confirm what is already “is undeniable,” in Kerry’s words, why were the UN
investigators stripped of the mandate of determining “who” used the chemical
weapons in Syria, if not to leave it up to the U.S. & partners to decide in
advance as a prejudged conclusion that “There's no
doubt who is responsible: The Syrian regime,” according to Vice President
Joe Biden on Wednesday, to be consistent with their plans for a regime change in
Damascus, and let the truth go to hell.
* Nicola Nasser is a veteran Arab journalist based in Birzeit,
West Bank of the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories. nassernicola@ymail.com
