http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article35093.htm
US Makes Syria an ‘Offer it
Can’t Refuse’ – again
By Finian Cunningham
By Finian Cunningham
May 27, 2013 "Information
Clearing House" -"SCF" - In Mafia
terms, it’s called “making an offer that can’t be refused”. The “offer” is not
one of free choice between options that may benefit the object party. In
reality, it is about setting up a scenario of duress, under which the object
party is coerced to capitulate to detrimental terms of extreme prejudice
determined cynically by the other party.
This is the scenario that
Washington and its NATO allies are contriving for the Syrian government of
President Bashar al-Assad…
The so-called international
peace conference that may take place in the coming weeks, at the behest of
Washington and Moscow, is ostensibly aimed at finding a negotiated end to the
conflict in Syria that is now in its third year and which has resulted in up to
80,000 deaths. At least half of these deaths are believed to be
civilian.
Russian officials have
confirmed that the Syrian government is willing to participate, in principle, in
the conference with factions of the Syrian “opposition” – provided, says
Damascus, that the latter participants do not have “blood on their
hands”.
That criterion may yet turn
out to make the forthcoming conference a non-runner since the main opposition
group – the Western-backed Syrian National Coalition (SNC) – is entwined with a
host of mercenary forces on the ground that are drenched in blood from a
relentless campaign of terrorism and sabotage.
However, it is not even clear
if the fractious and mainly exile-based SNC has any authority over the motley
crew of militant groups – more than 75 per cent of whom are foreign self-styled
jihadi extremists that emanate from 30 or more Arab and other countries,
according to United Nations reports.
Chief among these groups that
comprise the so-called Free Syrian Army is the Al Nusra Front, the main fighting
force, which is aligned with the Al Qaeda-affiliated network that stretches from
Russia’s Caucus region, through Afghanistan and Iraq, to Libya, Mali and
Niger.
It has to be said that
Russia’s intentions for a negotiated peace settlement seem to be honourable –
and based on the principle of arriving at some kind of internal Syrian
consensus. To that end, Russia maintains the position of not setting
preconditions about the political fate of the incumbent President Assad. Russia
is supported in this view by Iran and China. It is not, they say, for foreign
governments or their regional allies and proxies to determine the outcome of the
conference and in particular the political future of Assad.
Contrast that with the
position of the other broker – Washington. At a preliminary meeting in Jordan
this past week, the US Secretary of State John Kerry insisted, along with NATO
allies, Britain, France, Italy and Germany, as well as the Persian Gulf Arab
sheikhdoms, that Assad “must go”.
Kerry told the assembled
“Friends of Syria” that the US was not dictating the outcome of the planned
peace conference, but then contradicted himself flatly by repeating the
assertion that President Assad would not be part of any Syrian political
transition.
“Can a person who has used
artillery shells and missiles and Scuds and tanks against women and children and
university students – can that person possibly be judged by any reasonable
person to have the credibility and legitimacy to lead that country in the
future?” asked Kerry.
The veracity of these
allegations against the Assad regime is more than a moot point. There is
substantial evidence that the violations Kerry was attributing to Syrian
government forces, such as the rocket attack on Aleppo University in January
that resulted in more than 80 deaths, were in fact committed by Western-backed
militants. The use of chemical weapons near Aleppo in March has also been shown
recently by Russian RTR journalists to be the work of Western-backed militants,
not the regime, as Western governments have been insinuating.
But that aside, the immediate
point here is that Kerry and his “Enemies of Syria” coalition are very much
trying to dictate terms on the anticipated political process. That same Western
intransigence was largely why the Geneva accord reached last June by the UN
Security Council came unstuck – and tens of thousands more Syrian deaths
followed.
Adding to the warped framework
of negotiations, the US, Britain and France are also insisting – in contrast to
Russia and China – that Iran should not be permitted to take part in the
process. Of course, the NATO powers can rely on their Sunni allies among the
Persian Gulf monarchies of Saudi Arabia and Qatar to endorse that stipulation.
Why the Western powers and their Arab dictator friends have any more right than
Iran – an ally of Syria with vital interests at stake in the conflict – is
beyond their permitted rationale or discussion.
So, the upshot is that Assad
is being offered a poisoned political chalice. On one hand, he is being told to
forfeit the sovereign rights of his people to have him as their leader, and by
all accounts a leader with a popular mandate, to give way to a negotiation with
“opposition” parties who are solely designated, funded and patronised by foreign
powers.
The SNC’s Ghassan Hitto, a
Texas-based Syrian businessman, is designated by Washington, London and the
former colonial power Paris as Syria’s premier-in-waiting. It is fair to say
that Hitto, as with many other American-accented members of the SNC, has
negligible popular support within Syria. That is, without any mandate from the
Syrian population, these exiles are being foisted to negotiate the political
future of Syria – a future that is extremely prejudicial in favour of Western
geopolitical interests.
On the other hand – and this
is where the Mafia analogy takes hold – the Western powers are making thinly
veiled threats that if Assad does not conform to the warped political framework,
that is, drink from the poisoned chalice, then all hell will break lose on this
country with an even greater escalation of Western-backed
violence.
“The United States is lobbying
European governments to back a British-led call to amend [lift] the EU arms
embargo on Syria,” reported the British Guardian this week, as Washington and
its friend were gathering in Jordan.
Up to now, Washington has at
least been maintaining the
fiction that it is not arming the anti-Assad militants. It has, of
course, been plying the mercenaries covertly with weaponry and logistics, along
with its NATO allies and the Gulf Arab dictatorships.
Militant commander Brigadier
General Salim Idriss has been pleading for Washington to begin openly supplying
anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles – not just the assault rifles and
explosives that have come so far through the clandestine CIA/MI6 conduits of
Turkey, Jordan, Qatar and Saudi Arabia.
Since last month, Washington
officials have begun briefing media outlets, such as the Washington Post and the
New York Times, that the Obama administration is moving towards more direct
military intervention in aid of the militants in Syria. “We’re clearly on an
upward trajectory,” a senior US official said somewhat cryptically on 30 April.
“We’ve moved over to assistance that has a direct military purpose.”
Days later, in the first week
of May, US Secretary of Defence Chuck Hagel hosted a press conference at the
Pentagon with his British counterpart, Philip Hammond. “Arming the rebels,
that’s an option,” said Hagel, indicating an apparent reversal of White House
policy of ostensibly only sending “non-lethal aid”.
And this week a US Senate
committee voted in favour of Washington arming the “rebels” in Syria.
Secretary of State John Kerry
is adding to this increasingly articulated threat. Voice of America reported
from the Jordanian meeting last week: “Kerry says the Obama administration hopes
President Assad ‘will understand the meaning of that’ [shift in US military
policy towards Syria].”
This latent threat of greater
aggression against Syria by the US, if it does not toe the political line as
ordained by Washington, is not a new tactic in America’s underlying objective of
regime change.
Last month, the Iranian FARS
news agency reported that Syrian envoy to Iran, Adnan Mahmoud, disclosed that as
far back as March 2011 – when the conflict was kicking off in Syria – that the
then US Secretary of Defence, Robert Gates, had starkly told the Damascus
government that it faced “a choice”.
The Syrian envoy to Iran was
quoted by FARS as saying: “Of course, in the very first weeks of the conflict in
Syria, the US Secretary of Defence [Robert Gates] sent a message to the Syrian
government, and said we should have cut our ties with the Islamic Republic of
Iran if we wanted to stop the war, and stressed that if we did so, they [the US]
would provide us with whatever we want”. In other words, Washington was making
Syria back then “an offer it couldn’t refuse”. Well, Syria did refuse back in
early 2011 to comply with US demands to cut its strategic ties with Iran, and as
time has shown Damascus has since paid a heavy price in terms of human lives and
the destruction of the country.
Now again, as the
American-backed “peace conference” is being dangled in front of Damascus,
Washington is replaying that same cynical offer. Either, drink from this
poisoned political chalice – or “we’ll send the boys around to do their
worst”.
Reprinted with permission from Strategic Culture Foundation.
Reprinted with permission from Strategic Culture Foundation.