Reproduced form: https://renegadeinc.com/western-imperial-power-set-destroy-syria/
There are 22 members of the Arab League, 21 of which are clients of the US. Syria is the remaining Arab state whose allegiances lie elsewhere. Syria is a client state of Russia and Iran is their only ally. The US want Syria’s army to be US trained, the Qatari pipeline to go through Syria. The Syrian conflict has never been about democracy, or human rights. It has always been about Assad’s relationship with Iran. In the first of this two-part series, we examine the media myths in relation to Syria, and the extent to which corporate media-state power continues to demonise the country’s president through propaganda.
Virtually unknown among large swaths the general public both in Britain and the U.S is the fact that Bashar-al Assad’s secular government won the first contested presidential election in Ba’athist Syria’s history on July 16, 2014, which was reported as having been open, fair and transparent. American Peace Council delegate, Joe Jamison, who was allowed unhindered travel throughout Syria, stated:
“By contrast to the medieval Wahhabist ideology, Syria promotes a socially inclusive and pluralistic form of Islam.
We [the USPC] met these people. They are humane and democratically minded…. The [Syrian] government is popular and recognised as being legitimate by the UN. It contests and wins elections which are monitored.
There’s a parliament which contains opposition parties – we met them. There is a significant non-violent opposition which is trying to work constructively for its own social vision.”
“Our delegation came to Syria with political views and assumptions, but we were determined to be sceptics and to follow the facts wherever they led us”, he said. “I concluded that the motive of the US war is to destroy an independent, Arab, secular state. It’s the last of this kind of state standing.”
The notion that the United States government and its allies and proxies, want to see the destruction of Syria’s pluralistic state under Assad destroyed, is hardly a secret. Indeed, one of Washington’s key allies in the region, Israel, has conceded as much. The claim by Israel’s defence minister, Avigdor Lieberman, that Assad’s removal is the empires “ultimate goal”, would appear to be consistent with the notion that the aim of the U.S government is to stymie the non-violent opposition inside Syria. Washington has been engaged in this strategy since early 2012 after having deliberately helped scupper Kofi Annan’s six point peace plan.
Overthrow Assad by violence
Members of the Syrian opposition within a newly reformed constitution who wanted to participate in democratic politics have instead been encouraged by the Western axis – as a result of bribing government forces to defect and through funding the Free Syrian Army – to overthrow the Assad government by violent means.
“Within days of Annan’s peace plan gaining a positive response from both sides in late March, the imperial powers openly pledged, for the first time, millions of dollars for the Free Syrian Army; for military equipment, to provide salaries to its soldiers and to bribe government forces to defect. In other words, terrified that the civil war is starting to die down, they are setting about institutionalising it.”
It’s the concept of the ‘institutionalisation’ of civil war in Syria that is being encouraged in the corporate mass media. In truth, the notion that the violence in Syria can be characterised as a civil war is a misnomer. US Peace Council delegate, Madeleyn Hoffman was right to dismiss the concept outright in relation to Syria:
“It’s not Assad against his own people”, she said. “It is president Assad and the Syrian people all together – in unity – against outside mercenary forces and terror organisations.”
This contention is consistent with the analysis of Stephen Gowans who recalls that in early 2011, reporters from Time magazine and the New York Times conceded that Assad commanded broad support, was popular, and that Syrians exhibited little interest in protest.
“For the last quarter of a century, the US and its allies have waged highly destructive campaigns of economic warfare against Syria and Iraq, the economic equivalent of nuclear war,” writes Gowans in his critically acclaimed book Washington’s Long War on Syria, “and have done so because they are opposed to Ba’ath Arab Socialist efforts to bring politics and the economics of the Arab world under the control of those who live and work in the Arab world.”
Time’s Rania Abouzeid said:
“Assad had a favorable reputation, especially among the two-thirds of the population under 30 years of age, and his government’s policies were widely supported.”
The journalist added:
“Even critics concede that Assad is popular and considered close to the country’s huge youth cohort, both emotionally, ideologically and, of course, chronologically. Unlike the ousted pro-American leaders of Tunisia and Egypt, Assad’s hostile foreign policy toward Israel, strident support for Palestinians and the militant groups Hamas and Hezbollah are in line with popular Syrian sentiment.”
Assad, in other words, has legitimacy. The Time correspondent added that Assad’s “driving himself to the Umayyad Mosque in February to take part in prayers to mark the Prophet Muhammad’s birthday, and strolling through the crowded Souq Al-Hamidiyah marketplace with a low security profile” had “helped to endear him, personally, to the public.”
This wouldn’t be possible if he was regarded by the Syrian people to be a dictator.
Media and government fantasy
The depiction of Syria by the corporate media as a non-secular Islamist fundamentalist state comparable to the totalitarianism of the Gulf Peninsula states akin to the Arab Spring, is a complete fantasy. On the contrary, Syria is a relatively progressive secular and pluralist country whose military are fighting a proxy war initiated and fueled from without.
The numbers highlighted below support this thesis.
Dr Declan Hayes, who for many years has been living in Syria, offers additional insights:
“If this were a genuine revolution or revolt against a tyrannical regime, the sort of despots one gets in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait or Turkey, one would expect most Syrian moderates to support it.
Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution, to take one pertinent example, famously had the support of the shopkeepers, hawkers and students of Tehran who ended up sending the Shah, his secret police and their toadies scuttling for American-supplied bolt holes overseas.
Whatever its rights or wrongs, Iran’s Islamic Revolution had widespread support, as do Bahrain’s moderate protesters, who brave the henchmen of Saudi Arabia every time they protest against that truly autocratic regime.
Moderate Alawites, Shias or Christians cannot support the Syrian insurgents as all the rebels are agreed that the Alawites and Shias must be exterminated and the Christians driven into exile, if they are not first also exterminated.”
“All of Syria’s Christian leaders support, implicitly at least, the government of the Syrian Arab Republic, not least because, a few token rebels apart, there is no area in rebel-held Syria where they can openly practice their religion or live without perpetual fear.
Nor is there anywhere the moderate rebels control that Christians and other minorities can be safe from kidnapping by these same moderates, who will then sell them on to their more violent partners in crime, in much the same way the moderate rebels sold on the Ma’lulah nuns and the two American journalists who were recently beheaded. There is, in short, no way Syria’s Christians, Shias or Alawites, who do not have a death wish, can support the moderate rebels.”
If Assad was really a tyrant intent on suppressing the democratic impulses of his people as opposed to the leader of a legitimate government fighting international Islamist terrorism, why did 18,000 civilians express joy after having been liberated by Assad’s forces from terrorist controlled areas?
Independent journalist, Vanessa Beeley, who spoke with civilians on the ground in east Aleppo as it was being liberated, emphasized what she described as the universal “sheer jubilation and celebration at their liberation by the Syrian-Arab Army and the Syrian government.”
These kinds of testimonies have been totally absent from the corporate media.
If the general public were to be made aware of the reactions of the Syrian people in the aftermath of their liberation, it would immediately bring the false propaganda perpetuated by the said media crashing down in flames.
“History will not be kind to those who have propagated the lie that something approximating to a democratic revolution has been underway in Syria.
On the contrary, the country and its people have suffered the depredations of an Islamic Khmer Rouge, intent on ‘purifying’ a multicultural and multi-religious society of minority communities that are able to trace their existence in this part of the world back over a millennia and more.”
“The vast majority of Syrians, without whose support the government would have collapsed long before now, utterly reject the ideology of these extremists — thousands of non-Syrians who’ve descended on the country from across the Muslim world and beyond like a plague of locusts, have taken advantage of the destabilisation of the region wrought by Washington and its allies in recent years.”
So what is the genesis that lays behind the attempt by foreign forces to destroy Syria’s populist secularism and for what purpose?
There is disagreement among academics and reporters as to what constituted the spark that was the catalyst resulting in the ensuing destabilisation of the country. However, there is general agreement that on 17 March, 2011, rioting occurred at the Syria-Jordan border town of Daraa involving hundreds not, as is often claimed, thousands or tens of thousands of people. The rioting was guided by a largely Islamist agenda, and wasn’t a mass uprising typical of the Arab Spring depicted in much of the Western media.
A review of press reports in the weeks immediately preceding and following the riots, offers no indication that Syria was in the grips of a revolutionary struggle. On the contrary, reporters representing Time magazine and the New York Times referred to the government as having broad support, of critics conceding that Assad was popular, and of Syrians exhibiting little interest in protest. This narrative is consistent with the indifference shown to the “Day of Rage” ‘protests’ on February 4 and 5 that preceded it. The protests “fizzled,” reported Time.
The magazine reported that two jihadist groups that would later play lead roles in the insurgency, Jabhat al-Nusra and Ahrar al-Sham, were already in operation on the eve of the riots, while a mere three months earlier, leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood voiced “their hope for a civil revolt in Syria.” The Muslim Brothers, who had decades earlier declared a blood feud with Syria’s ruling Ba’athist Party, objecting violently to the party’s secularism, had been embroiled in a life and death struggle with secular Arab nationalists since the 1960s, and had engaged in street battles with Ba’athist partisans from the late 1940s.
In response to the violent attacks by hundreds of Islamist activists (what we in the West would term ‘terrorists’) on government buildings – that involved arson – president Assad responded by agreeing to the jihadists demands. This included releasing their comrades from state prisons. The US State Department had acknowledged that political Islam was the main opposition in Syria and that jihadists made up the principal section of opposition groups likely to be incarcerated.
“Clerics demanding that Damascus release all political prisoners was equal in effect to the Islamic State demanding that Washington, Paris, and London release all Islamists detained in US, French and British prisons on terrorism charges.”
“This wasn’t a demand for jobs and greater democracy, but a demand for the release from prison of activists inspired by the goal of bringing about an Islamic state in Syria.
The call to lift the emergency law, similarly, appeared to have little to do with fostering democracy and more to do with expanding the room for jihadists and their collaborators to organise opposition to the secular state.”
Writing shortly after the violence at Daraa, professor of Economics, Michel Chossudovsky noted that the burning of government buildings by jihadists:
“had all the appearances of a staged event involving, in all likelihood, covert support to Islamic terrorists by Mossad and/or Western intelligence. Government sources point to the role of radical Salafist groups (supported by Israel). Other reports have pointed to the role of Saudi Arabia in financing the protest movement.”
Jeremy Salt, associate professor in Middle Eastern History and Politics at Bilkent University, Ankara, wrote:
“The armed groups are well armed and well organised. Large shipments of weapons have been smuggled into Syria from Lebanon and Turkey. They include pump action shotguns, machine guns, Kalashnikovs, RPG launchers, Israeli-made hand grenades and numerous other explosives. It is not clear who is providing these weapons but someone is, and someone is paying for them.”
Reports (suppressed in the Western media) indicating that the number of policemen killed at Daraa (seven) was more than the number of demonstrators killed (four), is hardly indicative of the brutal actions of a government intent on oppressing its own people.
Assad has mass support among Syrians
Clearly, the outbreak of violence in Daraa, undertaken by less than a thousand jihadists in support of their imprisoned comrades, was not representative of the will of the mass of the Syrian people. Indeed, the subsequent pro-government rally in the capital twelve days after the Western fomented violence in Daraa (which can be viewed below), is indicative of widespread support for Assad, and far exceeds in number the hundreds of protesters who turned out in the Syria-Jordan border town to burn buildings and cars and clash with police.
Pro Assad Rally
Aleppo, 19-10-2011 https://t.co/YNPKnRIeBR
— the Lemniscat (@theLemniscat) November 7, 2016
The tens of thousands of Syrians who gathered at central bank square in Damascus in support of their president, rather predictably, was portrayed in the Western media as an anti-government demonstration. The Guardian, for instance, reported the rally as a “military crackdown against civilians”. This kind of misinformation prompted Russia and China to veto a European-backed UN security council resolution threatening sanctions against the Syrian regime “if it did not immediately halt its military crackdown against civilians”.
Boost to profits
The prospect of a lengthy war against Syria provides a boost to the profits of the arms and weapons companies while simultaneously reining in Russian and Iranian influence in the region. According to Charles Glass, in order to help achieve this, U.S tax payers’ money “has been used to fund terrorist groups from the very beginning.”
The author, journalist and film-maker proffered the U.S rationale for this course of action:
“Iran is president Assad’s only ally in the region, and Assad is the only client state of Russia in the entire Arab war.
Remember, there are only twenty-two members of the Arab League, twenty-one of whom are client American states, and Russia wasn’t going to give the one that remains up.
So from the point of view of the U.S, they want to have all twenty-two.”
“Moreover, they want the Syrian army to be U.S trained, and they want a Qatari pipeline to go through Syria. They want to dominate the whole region and Syria is the missing piece.
In addition to which, because Syria supported Hezzbollah in Lebanon, which the Israeli’s have never forgiven them for, they wanted to break the bridge with Tehran.
For the outside powers, it’s never been about human rights and democracy inside Syria. That’s not the issue. The issue has always been about Assad’s relationship with Iran.”
Black market oil & the funding of jihadists
In 2012, a Pentagon document obtained by Judicial Watch spelled out that the jihadist terrorist opposition in Syria – who have burned down churches and massacred the world’s oldest Christian communities – are the major forces driving the insurgency in the country. It’s jihadi factions who countries like the US, Saudi Arabia, Britain and France are actively supporting.
Two years later (2014), David Cohen, US Treasury under-secretary for terrorism and financial intelligence, claimed that middlemen from Turkey and Iraq’s Kurdistan region buy black market oil from ISIS that earns the terror group some $1 million a day.
In his testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee in September 2014, General Martin Dempsey, then chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, was asked by Senator Lindsay Graham whether he knew of “any major Arab ally that embraces ISIL”?
“I know major Arab allies who fund them.”
In other words, the most senior US military official at the time had confirmed that ISIS were being funded by the very same “major Arab allies” that had just joined the US-led anti-ISIS coalition.
Dempsey’s testimony is consistent with information contained within a leaked US State Department memo, dated 17 August 2014, which states that:
“We need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to Isis and other radical groups in the region.”
The prospect of regime change in Syria and elsewhere would not be possible without a sophisticated and compliant media PR propaganda machine that underpins the military objectives of the state. Journalist Patrick Cockburn has revealed the embedded nature of corporate-state power in helping to foment imperialist wars:
“It would be simple-minded to believe that this very appealing and professional PR for the Syrian armed opposition is all their own work.
Foreign governments play a fairly open role in funding and training opposition media specialists.
One journalist of partly Syrian extraction in Beirut told me how he had been offered $17,000 a month to work for just such an opposition media PR project backed by the British government.”
War is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous
The openly stated positions of the imperial powers and their media accomplices completely debunks the notion that the motives of both are benign. It is clear that as far as elite Western power is concerned, continuous war is preferred to a genuine and lasting peace, particularly in resource-rich parts of the world where humanitarian concerns are regarded as an obstacle to the establishment of geopolitical and economic interests.
In relation to Iraq, for example, the notion that the NATO alliance did everything it could to obstruct a peaceful resolution in the country was overwhelming. Peace is not conducive to profits. Similarly, in relation to Libya, the notion that UN Security Council Resolution 1973 was used to assist in “facilitating dialogue” was rendered absurd by the subsequent rejection by the West of proposals put forward by the African Union (AU).
“If stopping the killing [in Libya] had been the real aim, NATO states would have backed a ceasefire and a negotiated settlement, rather than repeatedly vetoing both.”
In Libya, as in Iraq, a negotiated settlement – peace that could have averted a bloodbath – was an obstacle to be avoided, not a goal. Why? While the UN mandate referred specifically to the protection of civilians under threat of attack, the Guardian’s Richard Norton-Taylor commented, “it was quite clear from the start that regime change was the objective.”
Former UK ambassador, Craig Murray, commented: “NATO action in Libya went way beyond what the Security Council had actually authorised, which was a no fly zone to protect civilians, a ceasefire, and negotiations between the parties.”
It was NATO’s political support for violent resistance in Libya, its air campaign in support of anti-Gaddafi forces, its flat rejection of all ceasefire and peace proposals, and its demand that Gaddafi “step down”, that created the conditions for civil war and, as planned, regime change.
The same imperial powers have been pursuing a similar strategy in Syria. This became evident the moment they rejected the six-point Annan peace plan that was accepted on 27 March, 2012 by president Assad.
It is clear that the Western powers and their middle east regional allies view the suffering of innocent people at the hands of Islamist fundamentalists like ISIS and other proxies, who they arm and fund, as a price worth paying in order to secure their geopolitical and economic goals in the region.
Regime change, against a backdrop of terrible human suffering, is regarded by the imperial powers as preferable to the establishment of a secular and pluralistic government under president Assad. The right of Syria’s minority communities to be able to continue to live under a non-sectarian umbrella, protected under international law, and to ensure the civil liberties of these people are upheld and protected, is not a priority as far as the British and United States governments’ are concerned.
Read Part 2 here: We examine the role the UK government is playing in bringing about regime change in Syria, as well as evaluating what the Labour party’s foreign policy position is likely to be. [CONTINUED BELOW]
From the colonial-imperial wars of the early 19th century through to the 1950s in Syria and the early 1980s in Afghanistan and beyond, the objectives of the Western powers has always been the same – the drive for profits.
This article is follows-up on ‘‘How western imperial power set out to destroy Syria‘, [CONTINUED FROM ABOVE] broadening the debate by critiquing the role both the Right and the Left in Britain have, and are, playing in the propaganda process. Has there ever been an ethical dimension in relation to UK foreign policy in Syria and elsewhere?
An ‘ethical dimension’ to foreign policy has invariably invoked regime change predicated on violence. Under current foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, the UK government approach toward Syria has sought the imposition of an anti-Russian leader within the power structures of the Syrian state. Johnson is well aware that regime change in Syria cannot be achieved without the aid of ISIS and their various offshoots on the ground who have gained access to weapons exported by the UK to the Middle East in the wake of the 2003 US-led Iraq invasion.
However, gaining access to weapons is not possible without access to money to purchase them. The main source of ISIS funds is from the sale of oil from nearly a dozen oil fields in northern Iraq and Syria’s Raqqa province. It then passes through Turkey and Iraq’s Kurdistan region. In September 2014, in a briefing to the European Parliament Foreign Affairs Committee, EU Ambassador to Iraq, Jana Hybaskova, conceded that some European countries have purchased crude from ISIS from the areas in northern Iraq and Syria they have captured.
History repeating itself
As early as 1834, David Urquhart, First Secretary at the British Embassy in Constantinople organised a committee of mujahideen to run guns to jihadists. This continued through to the late 1940s in response to the Baath Parties support of Gamal Abdel Nasser Hussein, the second President of Egypt’s anti-imperial policies and its close ties to Moscow. By 1956, Britain began promoting the idea that the Syrian people needed to be saved from the egalitarianism of the Syrian state.
Working in conjunction with the U.S, the British agreed that a serious attempt should be made to establish a pro-Western government in Syria by means of an engineered coup that enlisted the use of Turkish, Iraqi and Lebanese forces as well as the Muslim Brotherhood. In December, 1954, the British ambassador in Damascus, Sir John Gardener, told Anthony Eden, then foreign secretary, of “monster demonstrations arranged by the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria”, which took place after Egypt’s clampdown against the movement.
However, this strategy proved counterproductive. The coup, known as Operation Straggle, ultimately failed. It was replaced in September, 1957, by another plan. Backed at the highest level in Britain, this strategy principally involved the provoking of an internal uprising by the Muslim Brotherhood in Damascus as a prelude to the Syrian government’s overthrow.
Carried out in coordination with the Iraqi, Jordanian and Lebanese intelligence services, the ‘Preferred Plan’ involved further divide and conquer and false flag tactics, the use of Syrian MI6 agents working inside the Baath Party and the CIA to augment tensions in Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon. Syria had to be made to appear as the sponsor of plots, sabotage and violence directed against neighbouring governments.
The Anglo–American plan also involved Prime Minister Harold Macmillan authorising the assassination of key Syrian officials. The head of Syrian military intelligence, the chief of the Syrian general staff and the leader of the Syrian Communist Party, were all approved as targets. Yet in the end, the 1957 plan never went ahead, mainly because Syria’s Arab neighbours could not be persuaded to take action.
Once again, the parallels with today are remarkable.
The policy of using false flag incidents as the justification for military engagement in Syria differ only in terms of the specifics.
Hence, the notion that the UK governments current official enemy was responsible for the chemical attacks in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta in 2013, was the pretext needed for invasion.
This was the year former French Foreign Minister Roland Dumas announced that Britain had been planning the war on Syria “two years before the Arab spring” which was to involve the organising of an invasion of rebels into the country.
Responsibility to protect
One day after the attacks, a lead article by The Guardian claimed there was not “much doubt” who was to blame for the Ghouta attacks, as it simultaneously assailed its readers with commentary on the West’s “responsibility to protect” – a liberal ‘ethical’-based justification that harked back to Robin Cook’s foreign policy strategy in East Timor during the late-1990s under Blair.
When the Blair government came to power in 1997, Cook ensured, under cover of the Official Secrets Act, that arm shipments to East Timor’s oppressors, the regime of General Suharto in Indonesia, were increased exponentially. Cook was aware of an exhaustive investigation by the foreign affairs committee of the Australian Parliament that concluded Suharto’s troops had caused the deaths of ‘at least’ 200,000 East Timorese, a third of the population. In New Labour’s first year in office, under the umbrella of an ‘ethical’ foreign policy, Britain was the biggest weapons supplier to the Suharto regime. (See: Hidden Agendas, John Pilger, pp.115-52).
It is under the guise of an ‘ethical’ responsibility to protect policy – or as one US official put it, “pre-emptive retaliation” – that the reconfiguration of international law has become established. This allows an attack on any potential adversary to be undertaken without evidence of any wrongdoing. The invocation of the R2P doctrine is the context that explains the current phase of mission creep and war in Syria.
Saving Syria’s Children & the Qatar government report
In response to public opposition to this state of affairs, the BBC produced the now infamous documentary, Saving Syria’s Children, arguably the most overt piece of war propaganda ever made. Sequences filmed by BBC personnel and others at Atareb Hospital, Aleppo on 26 August 2013 that purported to show the aftermath of an incendiary bomb attack on a school in Urm Al-Kubra were, in the words of independent researcher, Robert Stuart, “largely, if not entirely, staged.”
Broadcast on the day the House of Commons was due to vote for military action in Syria, the documentary was clearly intended to influence the vote which the Cameron government ultimately lost. Stuart’s brilliant and meticulous analytical demolition of the documentary is discussed at this link or at the video below.
Another cynical piece of BBC-produced anti-Assad propaganda, involved their distorted interpretation of a report commissioned by the Qatari government which claimed that the Syrian government had “systematically tortured and executed about 11,000 detainees since the start of the uprising.” Former UK diplomat, Craig Murray, described the BBCs presentation of the report as “a disgrace” that again, was clearly intended to influence public opinion in favour of war.
There have been numerous other accusations made against the Syrian government, all of which have been rebuked. The propaganda effort was stepped-up after the UK government failed to persuade parliament to support military action against the Assad government. In the autumn of 2013, the UK embarked on behind-the-scenes work to influence the course of the war by shaping perceptions of opposition fighters. It was during this time that the media began describing Islamist extremist obscurantists who routinely behead people, as ‘rebels’ and ‘Syrian opposition’.
It was also around this time that the foreign office, working with the Ministry of Defence, the Home Office and the Prime Minister’s Office began forming contracts companies for the express purpose of creating ‘targeted information’. In effect, the British government is funding a comprehensive top of the range advertising campaign to promote sectarian extremists in Syria who function as units of al Qaeda and ISIS.
This involves the production of videos, photos, military reports, radio broadcasts, print products and social media posts branded with the logos of fighting groups by contractors hired out by the Foreign Office and overseen by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) which are all linked to, and funded by various think-tanks, NGOs, lobbyists and governments. These organisations include: Avaaz, Hand In Hand for Syria, White Helmets, Mayday Rescue, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) and the Aleppo Media Centre (AMC).
Boris Johnson, conceded that, under the guise of humanitarian aid, the UK government has donated a £65m funding package to the various groups promoting regime change in Syria which is used in conjunction with ‘hard’ military power. This was reiterated in July, 2016 when, during a speech that echoed Thomas Friedman’s famous aphorism “the hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist”. Admiral Sir Philip Jones openly admittedthat “the hard punch of [British] military power is often delivered inside the kid glove of humanitarian relief.”
The imperialism of David Urquhart of the early 19th century is in essence no different from the imperialism of Boris Johnson in 2017. Then, as now, wars of aggression, are motivated by the financial imperatives associated with big business. In his book Towards a New Cold War: U.S. Foreign Policy from Vietnam to Reagan, Noam Chomsky argues that:
“If we hope to understand anything about the foreign policy of any state, it is a good idea to begin by investigating the domestic social structure.
Who sets foreign policy? What interests do these people represent? What is the domestic source of their power?
It is a reasonable surmise that the policy that evolves will reflect the special interests of those who design it?”
Unfortunately, as the Robin Cook example illustrates, the Left are not immune from the kind of domestic social structure outlined by Chomsky. Even under Corbyn, Johnson’s counterpart, shadow foreign secretary, Emily Thornberry, appears to hark back to the liberal interventionism that typified the Blair government.
— Mark Curtis (@markcurtis30) October 30, 2017
In Parliament, Thornberry championed the use of a no fly-zone (euphemism for regime change) in Syria and appears unaware of the covert support given by the current UK government to the Islamist propaganda outfit, The White Helmets.
It gets worse. It would appear that until relatively recently, George Galloway contrived to falsely equate the overwhelming public support of the secular government’s in Libya and Syria with the ‘Arab Spring’ uprisings in the Islamist dictatorships of the Arab Gulf peninsula as well as those in Tunisia and Egypt.
Galloway declared his support for the Arab Spring in a strongly worded critique of Gaddafi in a radio broadcast in February 2011:
Galloway repeated this sentiment again at the Oxford Union in October 2012, in relation to Syria. Rather strangely, the former Respect MP appears to have been unaware of the huge demonstrations in support of Gaddafi in Libya, which independent journalist, Lizzie Phelan provided personal on the ground testimony, in addition to the huge rallies in support of Assad in Damascus and Aleppo.
Meanwhile, British journalists Owen Jones and Jeremy Scahill, both dedicated supporters of illegal regime change in Syria, were instrumental in preventing Mother Agnes Mariam, a nun based in Homs, from speaking at the Stop the War Coalition. I recently tweeted to Galloway inquiring whether as Convener for the STWC he played any part in the decision to ban Mother Agnes from sharing a platform at their conference. Galloway didn’t reply.
Then, most significantly and depressing of all, has been the attempts by Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, in his role as chairman of the STWC, to suppress debate and dissent about STW policies regarding Libya and Syria. Also on Corbyn’s watch, the STWC continued its affiliation with the Islamists, the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB).
In December 2015, in his speech to the debate about air-strikes on Syria, Corbyn made a most revealing statement about what he terms ‘the Syrian Civil War’ in which he regurgitated the crudest of anti-Assad propaganda, (full speech below).
“By suggesting that Assad is worse than ISIS, Corbyn is buying into the NATO narrative on Syria, heavily dependent on the myth of the genocidal Bashar al Assad, which has been created in order to justify the goal on regime change, in preference to actually stopping ISIS or other terrorist groups in Syria.
So while ostensibly opposing overt intervention in Syria, Corbyn is underwriting the reasons given for that intervention, and thus facilitating it.”
The desperation by many to see Corbyn elected as the next Prime Minister of Britain, ought not to be used as a way of absolving both him and Emily Thornberry of criticism in their foreign policy approaches towards Syria and the middle east more broadly. And yet, so appalling have the foreign policies of the Tories been, that it’s perhaps easy to overlook the evidence which seems to suggest Labour’s foreign policies wouldn’t be much better.
Certainly, Corbyn’s failure to acknowledge that the culpability for the war is not of Assad’s making, or to properly critique the insidious role played by both the White Helmets and the Jo Cox Foundation (the latter has earmarked money to the former), are serious flaws in his analysis crucial to a proper understanding of the conflict in Syria.
The near foreign policy consensus between the two major political parties in Britain is historically embedded – bound as Chomsky acknowledges, by a rigid domestic social structure. From the colonial-imperial wars of the early 19th century when the British aligned themselves with Islamist extremists, through to the 1950s in Syria and the early 1980s in Afghanistan and beyond, the objectives of the Western powers has always been the same – the drive for profits.
It’s the concentration of wealth into the executive arm of the state which defines the logic of a capitalist system driven by war that enables this state of affairs to continue. For centuries the powerful have consistently sought to justify the initiation of wars against the powerless as the prelude to stealing their resources.