Monthly Archives: September 2013

If Syria were Israel …

It is 2008/2009. Israel is at war in Gaza using white phosphorus or other chemical weapons. Russia threats Israel with attack; the Russian foreign minister says “все варианты на столе” what means “all options are on the table” threatening Israel even with ABC-weapons.
The US backs Israel and blocks security resolutions in favour of Israel. The press accuses the US to defend its ally Israel and turning a blind eye on Israel’s use of chemical weapons even when Britain vetoed the resolutions, too. Some critical people in the press see the threat of force against Israel as illegal and think it is the UN who has to decide about steps against Israel but they are sidelined.  
All peace conferences in Geneva fail because Russia insists that — as a precondition — the Netanyahu government has to step down first. This is rejected by Israel and backed by US.
After the Russian foreign minister slips that Israel could destroy all its ABC weapons to avoid attack, the US and Russia agree on disarmament of Israel’s chemical weapons. However, the US insists that there will be no automatic punishments for Israel if Israel fails to comply fully with this agreement. The US makes sure that in this case the UN security council should decide about appropriate steps in order to prevent the Russians to bomb Israel at will.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Ein Gedankenexperiment zur Syrien Giftgas-Krise

Ein Gedankenexperiment:
Es ist 2008/2009. Israel befindet sich im Krieg in Gaza und benutzt weissem Phosphor oder andere chemische Waffen. Russland droht Israel mit Angriff; der russische Aussenminister sagt: “все варианты на столе”, übersetzt “alle Optionen sind auf dem Tisch”, was im Extremfall ABC-Waffen einschliesst.
Die USA hält zu Israel und blockiert im UN-Sicherheitsrat alle Resolutionen gegen Israel. Die Presse beschuldigt die USA einseitig ihren Verbündeten Israel zu verteidigen und Israels Einsatz von chemischen Waffen zu verleugnen, obwohl auch England ein Veto für Israel einlegt.
Alle Friedenskonferenzen in Genf zwischen Israel und Palästinensern scheitern, weil Russland darauf besteht, dass als Voraussetzung für die Verhandlungen die Regierung Netanyahu sofort zurücktritt, was von Israel und den USA abgelehnt wird.
Nachdem dem russischen Aussenminister in einer Rede ein Lapsus passiert, kommt es zu einer Übereinkunft zwischen Russland und den USA, die eine Zerstörung aller ABC-Waffen Israels vorsieht. Die USA beharrt aber darauf, dass es keinen automatischen Angriff gegen Israel gibt, wenn Israel nicht in vollem Umfang seinen Verpflichtungen nachkommen sollte, sondern dass der UN-Sicherheitsrat über geeignete Massnahmen entscheiden müsse. I.a.W. Russland darf nicht einfach drauflos bomben, wenn es meint, Israel verstecke noch ABC-Waffen.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Does the U.S. really want peace in Syria?

On March 27, three days after the bombing of Serbia began, NATO commander Wesley Clark informed the press that the vicious Serbian reaction was “entirely predictable.” He added that it had been “fully anticipated” and was “not in any way” a concern of the political leadership. In his memoirs, Clark reports that [..] if NATO proceeded to bomb Serbia, “almost certainly” the Serbs would “attack the civilian population” and NATO would be able to do nothing to prevent that reaction on the ground.”1[emphasis added]

When a military strike is planned, one has to ask the question what it evokes, who it endangers and if it is improving the situation for people or worsening it. As we could see in the case of Bosnia 1999 the situation for the population worsened massively; massacres increased manifold.

The International Crisis Group (ICG) just published its statement for Syria where it makes clear that a military attack is the worst possible scenario for Syria2. Why then does the US wants to strike Syria so badly when this will have the most dire consequences for the population?

The answer is simple: The USas history gives ample creditsdoes not pursue peace as a goal. The US is onlyand exclusivelyinterested in maintaining and expanding its power and economic interests3. ‘Human rights’, ‘peace’, etc. are just euphemisms to cover their aim of global dominance4.

What are the true interests of US in Syria?

Iran is the next Irak5; Iran has resources; Syria is an ally of Iran. Weaken the ally before you attack. If a military action against Iran will happen in the future, we don’t know, but the diplomatic behaviour against Iran shows clear signs. Iran does not bow to US orders. So it is a ‘bady’, part of the axis of evil. Iran could sell oil in Euros, a thread to the still world currency Dollar. Iran could become a powerful force in the region, uniting the Arab world. Both are against US interests of global dominance6.

How to weaken the ally?

Divide an rule”. A military strike that does not bring a solution even in the words of John Kerry7 can’t have peace in mind. After a death toll of 100’000 the population might be willing to accept a truce under Assad. Avoiding a victory of Assad, keeping the status quo of different parties fighting each other and rendering the country de facto useless as an ally for Iran makes much more sense in the light of global dominance.

The red line

If the attack is thought as a punishment against the use of chemical weapons, as a message (to prevent future massacres), as a consequence of having crossed the red line, we have to ask what else is the US doing to prevent the use of chemical weapons? Again, hypocrisy becomes visible as the US does hardly move a finger to stop the industry producing and selling the chemicals used for producing chemical weapons. There are far more efficient ways to stop future uses of chemical weapons than to bomb a country for the alleged use itespecially as the US used white phosphorus in Fallujah 2004 themselves! So, if you want to stop the use of chemical weapons, stop using them, stop producing them, stop selling them.

The Russians and the Chinese

Media headlines make us believe that China and Russia blocked all peace settlements. Omitted is the insistence of the US that Assad had to go, an unnecessary and useless demand that can only be explained to topple a peace agreement. As Norwegian General Robert Mood stated, […] it would have been possible to lead Syria through a transition supported by a united Security Council with Assad as part of the transition. […] The insistence on the removal of President Assad as a start of the process led them into a corner where the strategic picture gave them no way out whatsoever.8

The oxymoron of attacking Syria is paraphrased by Robert Fisk: “If Barack Obama decides to attack the Syrian regime, he has ensured—for the very first time in history—that the United States will be on the same side as al-Qa’ida. …9 Orwell would bow to Obama; US fighting along with Al Qa’ida for world peace!


1Noam Chomsky, Hegemony or Survival: America’s quest for global dominance, pdf version, page 39

3The US economic interests are (a) access to resources, (b) access to the markets for their own products and (c) access to cheap labour. “pax americana” stands therefore for profit, access, x (collateral) …

4How can the US be concerned about roughly a thousand death by gas when they used up to 2’000 tons of depleted uranium in Iraq, a poison far worse than any chemical weapon? How can they care about gas when they themselves supported its use by Ira in the 1980? How can they care when the US is the only power that does not let inspectors check the US production of chemical weapons.

6The US behaves in such situation like a Mafia Don. The threat for US citizens is minimal to non-existent, but the image of the Don is threatened.

9Robert Fisk quoted in  ibid.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized