Breaking News

Biased, politicized reports lacking credibility & objectivity

Since the beginning of the crisis in Syria, the US has been exploiting its great influence to employ the UN and its affiliated bodies to serve its conspiracy against Syria. The US and its allies have been diverting a number of UN organizations from their noble goals and purposes, pushing them to ignore human rights violations in occupied areas, particularly in Palestine and the Syrian Golan, all while these organizations race in an unprecedented manner to take biased decisions against Syria to increase the shedding of Syrian blood and the destruction the country, thereby giving Israel a green light to increase its oppression, crimes and settlement in the occupied Arab lands.

The recent report presented by the Commission of Inquiry on Syria was full of bias, exaggeration and disinformation, and it lacked credibility and authentic testimonies.

Despite the fact that the Commission  admitted the support offered by external parties to extremist terrorist groups fighting in Syria, it was not brave enough to name these parities, namely the US, France, Britain and their regional and Arab tools: Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. The Commission did not even refer to the frenzied campaigns by some countries which are inciting killings in Syria every time a sign of an international move comes into sight towards a political solution based on comprehensive dialogue among the Syrians without foreign diktat. Whenever the international efforts reach a breakthrough with regard to convening the Geneva Conference and resolving the crisis politically, the US and its allies increase their military and financial support to the armed takfiri groups to escalate their terrorist operations against Syrian people and their public and private properties.

It seems that the Commission has neither heard nor seen the savage atrocities and heinous massacres of al-Qaeda- affiliate organizations and the Takfiri groups in the areas that they attacked, the public executions before the children and women and the acts of vandalism against factories, hospitals and public utilities. Moreover, the Commission alleged that the Syrian government is destroying its health institutions. This is a very cheap and politicized disinformation because there is no country in the world that demolishes its hospitals and infrastructure.

The report ignored the fact that the main factor behind the internal displacement of Syrian citizens is the terrorist operations by the Takfiri groups and the forceful dislocation on sectarian grounds, because one of the main sinister goals of the US and its allies was to incite a sectarian war that destroys the country and weakens the army. It also ignored the unfair and unjustifiable sanctions targeting the Syrian citizens in their livelihood, health conditions, education and other basic human rights.

As was the case with the previous reports, the Commission did not maintain truth and objectivity and ignored scores of authentic documents submitted by the Syrian government that belie the groundless allegations of the parties complicit in shedding the Syrian blood.

K.Q.

A Chance to Sponsor Mideast Peace

Syria, a peace-loving country, has been for decades working for the restoration of the Israeli occupied Golan. Syria's participation in Madrid Peace process on the basis of UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338  has led to progress regarding the restoration of the Golan.

Syria's work for peace has been accompanied with her repeated calls for the freeing of Mideast region from all Mass destruction Weapons MDWs. As a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council, Syria presented a proposal to rid the region from MDWs in 2003. Unfortunately, such proposal was shelved by the USA, which has been lobbying and threatening Syrians of launching attacks against them, not to mention the US covert as well as overt alliance with al-Qaeda affiliates as to destroy the secular Syria.

With this in mind, Syria has recently joined the chemical Weapons Convention (CWC)  and out of its latent desire for peace, stability and tranquility. Syria is indeed keen on the realization of the just and comprehensive peace in the Middle East. Hopefully, others would recognize that in the global village of today, it is peace and only peace which can deter as well as secure all.

Thus, the US Administration of Mr. Barrack Obama has a chance now to sponsor  peace, instead of sword-rattling and war crimes. A U.S.-led attack on Syria without United Nations support would be a war crime regardless of congressional approval, Noam Chomsky, the antiwar activist and author, said in response to President Barack Obama's announcement that he would seek Hill approval.

"As international support for Obama’s decision to attack Syria has collapsed, along with the credibility of government claims, the administration has fallen back on a standard pretext for war crimes when all else fails: the credibility of the threats of the self-designated policeman of the world," Chomsky told HuffPost in an email.

 Dr. Mohammad Abdo Al-Ibrahim

An outlet for Obama’s political fiasco

The planners of the war against Syria sought to undermine the resistance axis in the region but failed to achieve that purpose. We have noticed, since the start of the crisis that the US intervened indirectly in Syria in many forms, especially through ordering its regional and Arab tools to train, fund and export terrorist groups to Syria to commit savage atrocities against Syrian people and destroy their public and private properties.

The second phase for the US was to intervene militarily, but all its sinister schemes which aim at undermining the resistant role of Syria and reshaping the map of the region in a way that suits the American Zionist interests went in vain, because of the strong spirit of resistance planted in the souls of the Syrian and Arab people and the high awareness of European and American peoples towards the adverse consequences of the war which will be launched against a sovereign country.

The United States halted its plan to attack Syria because of the resistance movement and the opposition of the world public opinion to such an unjustifiable offensive. Countless of problems will face the US over its decision to attack Syria. The most important reason behind the US backtracking on its decision to launch a military strike against Syria has been the resistance way of thinking.  Moreover, the American and European people do not approve of an attack on Syria under the pretext of chemical weapons use, because US officials had also used a big lie earlier that is the weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), to attack Iraq. In 2003, the United States and its allies invaded Iraq in a flagrant violation of international law under the pretext that Baghdad was in possession of WMDs. However, no such weapons were ever discovered in Iraq and the Iraqis are still suffering from the repercussions of this devastating war which destroyed the Iraqi infrastructure and claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of the Iraqi people.

The recently conducted Gallup survey indicates that Americans’ trust in Obama’s ability to deal with international issues is at an all-time low, with only 49 percent saying they have a great deal or a fair amount of confidence in the US administration. Renowned American intellectual Noam Chomsky said the recent Russian proposal aimed at halting a US strike against Syria has saved President Barack Obama from a political fiasco. The plan is a godsend for Obama and it saves him from what would look like a very serious political defeat.

Obama has not been able to obtain any international support for his reckless military adventure. Even Britain wouldn’t support it, because the British House of Commons did not vote for it. And it seems that the Congress wasn’t going to support it either, and this would leave his military adventure without any support. The wise American lawmakers know well that Obama’s scenario will bring adverse repercussions on the American people as was the case with the previous military adventures launched by Bush’s administration against Iraq and Afghanistan.

Apart from the local and international support the Obama administration failed to recruit, Washington’s threat of force against Syria is a crime under international law, because according to the UN charter, no state has the right to launch a war or threaten to use force against a sovereign state. 

The crisis in Syria should be settled by the Syrians themselves through respecting the Syrian sovereignty, halting the acts of violence and launching the comprehensive political dialogue between the government and the opposition without preconditions and on the basis of the Geneva Communiqué issued on June 30 of 2012.

Syrian government's agreement on the initiative is an important step towards a political settlement of the crisis in Syria. This step indicates the serious intentions of Syria to press ahead in resolving the crisis politically. The agreement on the initiative revives hope in the possibility of driving away the phantom of war in the region. Syria's decision to join the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) uprooted the U.S. pretext to launch an aggression, and the countries and sides which played the war drumbeats will no more be able to continue their previous policies after this decision. All countries opposing the aggression are victorious and the international circumstances fully support Syria's decision. But providing arms to the illegitimate extremist groups and the reach of chemical weapons to these groups is the biggest threat to peace and security in the region.

K.Q.

Russian initiative pulls rug from under the feet of warmongers

Syria has accepted the Russian initiative on the chemical weapons to withdraw the justifications of the US aggression on the Syrian people and to pull Syria out of a spiral of sorrow and death, because war is always a defeat for humanity.  The agreement stemmed from the Syrian leadership's responsibility to prevent the catastrophic Western aggression on the country and preserve the Syrian citizens' lives and the infrastructure of the country. It is also based on confidence in the Russian leadership which has proved itself as a truthful partner in averting U.S. aggression on the Syrian people. The initiative is positive and constructive since it gives a push towards finding a solution to the crisis in Syria. It provides a chance for a political settlement in Syria among the Syrians themselves away from foreign diktat. Putting chemical weapons in Syria under international supervision pulls the rug from under the feet of those who seek an aggression and opens up a realistic way out of the crisis without any military intervention or foreign diktat.

The support for the Russian initiative came out of keenness to prevent the occurrence of war whose repercussions could go beyond the region. Any war against Syria would be devastating to the whole countries in the region and would immerse the region in the vicious circle of violence and instability for decades and generations to come.

Solution to the chemical weapons issue in Syria would be a positive step towards solving the crisis through a comprehensive national dialogue that encompasses all spectra of Syrian society. But implementing the initiative does not only depend on Syria and it requires cooperation from the US side which should first halt its aggressive policies towards Syria.

The White House has two options now: one of them is to consider Russia’s proposal in earnest and to work seriously to make it implementable. This will mean the Americans will avail themselves of the opportunity to abandon their military action, war mongering campaign and halt belligerency towards Syria. This option might provide the U.S. and President Barack Obama, who positions himself as a peacekeeper, with a way out of the complicated political situation, the one the American officials  have driven themselves into by their cruel statements and baseless accusations against Syria.

The other option is to ignore Russia’s proposal and to leave the military scenario as the only way to resolve the crisis in Syria. But this would be a bad and very grave decision, since the strike on Syria would belittle the U.S. prestige across the world because of its catastrophic repercussions. Hope is pinned on Obama and his aides to cancel this option and benefit from the previous failing military intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan from which the peoples of the two states and the region are still suffering.

Throughout the American response, the world will be able to judge the authenticity of the intentions and the true objectives of the U.S. foreign policy as regards the crisis in Syria.

Syria has immediately started to implement the Russian initiative by joining the Organization of the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. Syria has become a full member of the Chemical Weapons Convention. But this move wasn't a spur of the moment decision, as Syria had submitted to the Security Council in 2003 a draft resolution for making the entire Middle East free from WMDs, but all Syrian efforts in this regard were thwarted by the refusal of Israel and its supporters.

 The US seriousness towards the initiative will help avert war and pave the way for the settlement of the crisis in Syria peacefully.

K.Q.

Looking for peace better than seeking war

The US President Barak Obama should know well that history's judgment will be that the president who seeks to prevent war and destruction and make peace is stronger than the president who seeks war and destruction; because throughout history we have seen that the first victims of all the wars that happened in the past were children, women and innocent people. He should not forget that he was the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. The Nobel Laureates are presumably advocates of peace not wars and reckless military adventures.

What are the real aims of Obama’s military adventure? It is to strike the capabilities of the Syrian Arab army in favour of al-Qaeda and its affiliates in Syria, like Jabhat al-Nusra, the so-called Ahrar al-Sham brigade and the Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham despite the fact that these groups were classified by the US as terrorist organizations, and here lies one main aspect of the US double standard policy in dealing with the crisis in Syria. How can Obama support those who blew up the World Trade Center in New York on September 11th 2011? Who is the most beneficiary of this military adventure? The use of force against sovereign states would increase the terrorists' activities in Syria and the rest of the region's countries and it will increase the number of refugees and displaced citizens.  The US didn't learn from what happened in Afghanistan when it supported Al Qaeda in the 1980s to fight the former Soviet Union and ended up fighting it there now. It seems that the US wants to make Syria a base for Al Qaeda to spread violence and extremism in all the countries of the region.  Israel is the most beneficiary, because extremism serves Zionism and enables Israel to invade the Arab region politically and economically through implementing the notorious new Middle East project which aims to perpetuate the Israeli occupation of the Arab territories and plunder the Arab resources, especially oil and gas.  Instead of thinking of the warmongering campaign and launching a thoughtless military adventure whose adverse consequences would not be limited, Obama and his ilk have to focus efforts on finding a peaceful solution through convening the intended international conference in Geneva and calling on the so-called opposition to take part in the conference without any pre-conditions. Obama and the warmongers in his administration should know well that the Syrian government has agreed on participating in Geneva 2 conference without any pre-conditions, whereas no unified attitude was released by the so-called opposition regarding the conference. The only pre-occupation for this opposition is to seek for more weapons, tools of destruction and call for foreign military intervention in their own country.

The US and European peoples had firmly stood against the aggression; the British House of Commons and the French Senate were a good example to that.

New polls in the United States of America revealed that the majority of the Americans are opposing any military act against Syria. The polls conducted by the New York Times and CBS News showed that 80% of the Americans have stressed that Obama didn't give clear justifications for the real goals of the US administration in Syria while 72% of the American people rejected the role of the US and its intervention in other countries to change their regimes with the aim of achieving political and economic interests.

The New York Times said that the new poll reveals a great change in the American public opinion on the US role in the world and the fatigue it has suffered due to the previous US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The American people seem to call on Obama: Stop your intervention in other countries and pay more attention to your people’s internal affairs and social welfare.

K.Q.