Gagrule.net

Gagrule.net News, Views, Interviews worldwide

US seeks Iraqi-style resolution on Syria – Pepe Escobar

By

Press TV has conducted an interview with Pepe Escobar, investigative journalist, about the UN report on the August 21 chemical weapons attack in Syria which hints at the possibility of manipulation of evidence in militant-held areas.

Pepe Escobar You know the United States says it is sure that the Syrian government carried out this chemical attack, Russia says the attack was falsified and now the UN says the attack site may have been manipulated. What really is happening here?

– Manipulation. In short that is what is happening. The Americans have been saying from the beginning they had 99 percent certainty based on Israeli Intel which was probably compromised from the start. This is the Intel that they have from Benny Gantz, the IDF [Chief of Staff] passed to General Martin Dempsey of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. They stand by it.

On the other hand we had independent analysts from all over. Even myself I wrote about this as well. The possibility of a false flag attack with kitchen sarin [gas] which was apprehended in Iraq by the Iraqi ministry of defense one month before the attack came the attack in Ghouta was transferred to Jabhat al-Nusra jihadists in Ghouta and it was probably a false flag operation.

This has not been investigated. How can the Americans, the French and the British say they have 99 percent certainty? It is absolutely impossible and this is part of a concerted effort by Washington along with Paris to derail the Geneva Agreement between Kerry and Lavrov even before it’s been implemented.

Because they want a Chapter 7 UN Security Council resolution which has the inbuilt possibility of launching war against Syria in case of noncompliance and they do not specify what kind of noncompliance would that be.

– You know Kerry keeps saying that Syria is not going to be like Iraq, that the US administration has been very careful, is going through every detail. From what you are saying though it does seem very similar to Iraq, doesn’t it?

– Yes it is. In fact they want a resolution very, very similar. It is an Iraqi-style Chapter 7 inbuilt possibility of an attack resolution. It won’t pass the UN Security Council. We already know that. Russia and China will veto it and the Americans, the French and the British, they know it. So probably it is going to be a two-step resolution.

The only possibility to have a resolution now is to have a non-binding resolution. Later on if there is a false flag, if the inspectors are attacked by the rebels for instance, sniper fire, it already happened before, then everybody goes back to the UN Security Council and probably there will be a second resolution.

But for the moment there is no other way apart from a non-binding resolution.

– So then Pepe, how does this affect the situation on the ground in Syria then?

– Well in fact nothing because House of Saud, the Turks’ logistical support, the Israelis have people on the ground as well, Qatari special forces they are still there on the ground. The weaponizing of the so-called rebels which is basically myriads of gangs … these criminals, bandits and foreign mercenary jihadists in fact goes on unabated.

The people who are being trained in Jordan by the CIA, they already crossed the border, they are already near Damascus and the so-called non-lethal weaponizing according to the Obama administration. It has already started.

So the weapons are flowing and the rebels are being reconstituted all over from the Jordanian-Syrian border to the Turkish-Syrian border and to the outskirts of Damascus as well. These people who want war, they won’t give up. It is simple as that.

 

Source: Panorama.am

James Corbett Talks 9/11 Truth on The Power Hour (Video) (Audeo)

By

James joins Joyce Riley of The Power Hour to discuss the 9/11 anniversary, the ridiculous nature of the official 9/11 conspiracy theory, and what James-Corbett-125-x-125--2we really do know about what happened that day. We also take calls and answer listener questions about 9/11 truth.
 

Audio Icon 2

 

9/11 conspiracy theory

Intriguing new reports on Yassin al-Qadi’s movements in Turkey by: Corbett report (Audio)

By

Audio Icon 2
 
Join James Corbett and Christoph Germann about intriguing new reports on Yassin al-Qadi’s movements in Turkey and the latest on the Syrian chemical weapons attack
 
 
 
 

When it comes to well-researched and produced video reports James Corbett of Corbett Report.
please visit http://www.corbettreport.com/ help donating to Continue the excellent research.

Egyptians overwhemingly oppose strike on Syria; US only has support of Arab dictators — PBS

By

Philip Weiss on September 3, 2013
Last night PBS aired a stellar report by Margaret Warner in Cairo, saying Egyptians overwhelmingly oppose a US military strike on Syria because they watched how the US destroyed Iraq on the basis of false claims, and a strike will only cause greater instability in the Middle East. Also note the Jordanian statesman’s assertion that the U.S. only has the support of Arab dictators, not the public, and that in the era of the Arab Spring, that model doesn’t work. Excerpts:

MARGARET WARNER: I have only been here 24 hours, and I have to say, I have been surprised at the unanimity with which people here are opposed to the idea of a U.S. military strike on Syria, despite the fact that some people here believe Assad probably did use chemical weapons.

People here say it will just cause more instability in the region. And they mention everything from more refugees to strengthening jihadi forces inside the rebel forces in Syria. And there’s really — at the root of it, there’s really great distrust of the United States, both its past actions in the Middle East and its motives for even considering this.

JEFFREY BROWN: So you’re saying they might well believe that the Assad regime used chemical weapons, but this really comes down to their feelings first and foremost about the U.S.?

MARGARET WARNER: It really does, Jeff.

Some people said to me, you got it wrong — the United States got it wrong about Iraq. You told the world there were weapons of mass destruction being made, and they were not. So, there are many people here who even doubt the intelligence that the Obama administration has presented with such kind of authority and confidence this time.

So I would say that’s a larger group. But I spoke to a young man last night who actually believes Bashar Assad did it. He said, we saw all those bodies on television. But, still, he does not — nobody here that I have spoken to — I don’t mean there isn’t anybody — trusts the United States and wants the United States to intervene once again in another Arab country.

They all point to the example of Iraq in a second way, which is the United States went in to rid Iraq of a dictator, and look what we got. Look what this region got, which is Iraq in disarray, sectarian violence within Iraq, and now, as we know, exporting jihadi elements back into Syria, Sunni extremists.

And Egypt is dealing with their own jihadi elements in the Sinai. So, whether it’s for practical reasons or on the level of trust in the United States’ motives, I just didn’t hear anyone who had confidence that the United States could act effectively and was doing it really with the region’s interests at heart….

JEFFREY BROWN: The president of course is hoping for support from that part of the world, particularly through the Arab League. Where do things stand for that?

MARGARET WARNER: Well, not encouragingly for the Obama administration, because, as you said, the Obama administration hoped that, just as just with the action in Libya, they would be acting in concert not only with some European partners, but with the Arab League.

The Arab League last week I think it was met and said, essentially, held Assad, said Assad should be held to account, and was critical of Assad, stopped short of military action. This week, starting yesterday, they had an emergency meeting which they moved up from later in the week to reconsider the question.

But what came out, the first readings looked like, oh, they’re now really calling on the international community to do something. But when you look at the text — and I spoke to people both in the Egyptian government and in the Arab League — they say the important thing about the today’s announcement was, yes, we’re calling on the United Nations and the international community to take some sort of deterrent action or deterrent measures against the use of chemical weapons by the regime, but — but the only basis, the only legal basis for military action is under either the U.N. charter of self-defense or by a vote of the Security Council, which, as one Egyptian official admitted to me, for practical — in a practical sense, that’s not going to happen because of Russia’s opposition.

And so it is interesting that — on two points. One, Egypt has long been an ally of the United States, is not acting in concert with the U.S. here. Egypt was the first to came out last week and say they were opposed to the use of force. And, secondly, that Marwan Muasher, who is the former foreign minister of Jordan, said to me today, it’s interesting that the only Arab leaders in the full-throated way calling for U.S. military action are the ones without elected parliaments.

That is, they are the governments that don’t feel they have to be responsive to their people, and that is some of these Gulf kingdoms, and that whether it’s Jordan or Egypt and other states which do have aroused publics now, and since the Arab spring, an even more activist public, they are not willing to go there.

Bashar al-Assad interview: ‘Show me the proof of regime chemical attack’

By

The Syrian president issued a dire warning that any Western military intervention could lead to “regional war” and would harm “the interests of France,” Telegraph.co.uk reported.

Assad show me the proof“Whoever accuses must provide proof. We have challenged the United States and France to provide the slightest proof. (US President Barack) Obama and (French president François) Hollande have been incapable (of doing so) even to their own people,” Assad told French newspaper Le Figaro in an exclusive interview.

He questioned the “logic” of claims that his forces carried the August 21 attack outside Damascus, which the US said killed 1,429 people.

“Supposing our army wishes to use weapons of mass destruction. Is it possible that it would do so in a zone where it is located and where (our) soldiers were wounded by these arms, as United Nations inspectors have noted during visits to hospitals where they were treated? Where is the logic?,” he asked.

Describing the Middle East as a “powder keg” whose “fuse is getting shorter”, he warned it would “explode” if Western forces struck Syria. “Nobody knows what will happen (after such strikes). Everyone will lose control of the situation when the powder keg explodes. Chaos and extremism will spread. The risk of a regional war exists,” he warned.

The Syrian leader then ratcheted up pressure on France to steer clear of military action two days ahead of a parliamentary debate on the issue. Two thirds of French people are against participating, according to a poll out on Saturday.

Assad said: “Whoever contributes to financially or militarily to bolstering terrorists is an enemy of the Syrian people. Whoever is against the interests of Syria and its people is an enemy.”

“The French people are not our enemy. If the policies of the French state are hostile to the Syrian people, this state will be its enemy. This hostility will end when the French state changes its policies. There will be repercussions – negative, of course – against the interests of France,” he warned.

Mr Assad accused the US president of being a weak leader.

“If Obama was strong, he would have said publicly: ‘We have no evidence of the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian State’. He would have said publicly: ‘The only way to proceed is through UN investigations. We therefore refer everything to the Security Council.’ But Obama is weak because he is facing pressure from within the United States,” he said.

Mr Assad said it was too late for dialogue with rebel opponents.

“We are fighting terrorists. Eighty to 90 per cent of those we are fighting belong to Al Qaeda. They are not interested in reform or in politics. The only way to deal with them is to annihilate them. Only then will we be able to talk about political measures,” he said.

 

 

Brzezinski: Syria May Suck Us into Large Regional War

By

Following is an interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski for The National Interest,  an American bi-monthly international affairs magazine

photo_verybig_153234Zbigniew Brzezinski is  former White House national-security adviser under Jimmy Carter and now a counselor and trustee at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and a senior research professor at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University.

The interview was conducted by Jacob Heilbrunn, TNI senior editor.

Here we are five years into the Obama administration, and you’re stating that the West is engaging in “mass propaganda.” Is Obama being drawn into Syria because he’s too weak to resist the status quo? What happened to President Obama that brought us here?

I can’t engage either in psychoanalysis or any kind of historical revisionism. He obviously has a difficult problem on his hands, and there is a mysterious aspect to all of this. Just consider the timing. In late 2011 there are outbreaks in Syria produced by a drought and abetted by two well-known autocracies in the Middle East: Qatar and Saudi Arabia. He all of a sudden announces that Assad has to go—without, apparently, any real preparation for making that happen. Then in the spring of 2012, the election year here, the CIA under General Petraeus, according to The New York Times of March 24th of this year, a very revealing article, mounts a large-scale effort to assist the Qataris and the Saudis and link them somehow with the Turks in that effort. Was this a strategic position? Why did we all of a sudden decide that Syria had to be destabilized and its government overthrown? Had it ever been explained to the American people? Then in the latter part of 2012, especially after the elections, the tide of conflict turns somewhat against the rebels. And it becomes clear that not all of those rebels are all that “democratic.” And so the whole policy begins to be reconsidered. I think these things need to be clarified so that one can have a more insightful understanding of what exactly U.S. policy was aiming at.

Historically, we often have aided rebel movements—Nicaragua, Afghanistan and Angola, for example. If you’re a neocon or a liberal hawk, you’re going to say that this is actually aiding forces that are toppling a dictator. So what’s wrong with intervening on humanitarian grounds?

In principle there’s nothing wrong with that as motive. But I do think that one has to assess, in advance of the action, the risks involved. In Nicaragua the risks were relatively little given America’s dominant position in Central America and no significant rival’s access to it from the outside. In Afghanistan I think we knew that Pakistan might be a problem, but we had to do it because of 9/11. But speaking purely for myself, I did advise [then defense secretary Donald] Rumsfeld, when together with some others we were consulted about the decision to go into Afghanistan. My advice was: go in, knock out the Taliban and then leave. I think the problem with Syria is its potentially destabilizing and contagious effect—namely, the vulnerability of Jordan, of Lebanon, the possibility that Iraq will really become part of a larger Sunni-Shiite sectarian conflict, and that there could be a grand collision between us and the Iranians. I think the stakes are larger and the situation is far less predictable and certainly not very susceptible to effective containment just to Syria by American power.

Are we, in fact, witnessing a delayed chain reaction? The dream of the neoconservatives, when they entered Iraq, was to create a domino effect in the Middle East, in which we would topple one regime after the other. Is this, in fact, a macabre realization of that aspiration?

True, that might be the case. They hope that in a sense Syria would redeem what happened originally in Iraq. But I think what we have to bear in mind is that in this particular case the regional situation as a whole is more volatile than it was when they invaded Iraq, and perhaps their views are also infected by the notion, shared by some Israeli right-wingers, that Israel’s strategic prospects are best served if all of its adjoining neighbors are destabilized. I happen to think that is a long-term formula for disaster for Israel, because its byproduct, if it happens, is the elimination of American influence in the region, with Israel left ultimately on its own. I don’t think that’s good for Israel, and, to me, more importantly, because I look at the problems from the vantage point of American national interest, it’s not very good for us.

You mentioned in an interview, I believe on MSNBC, the prospect of an international conference. Do you think that’s still a viable approach, that America should be pushing much more urgently to draw in China, Russia and other powers to reach some kind of peaceful end to this civil war?

I think if we tackle the issue alone with the Russians, which I think has to be done because they’re involved partially, and if we do it relying primarily on the former colonial powers in the region—France and Great Britain, who are really hated in the region—the chances of success are not as high as if we do engage in it, somehow, with China, India and Japan, which have a stake in a more stable Middle East. That relates in a way to the previous point you raised. Those countries perhaps can then cumulatively help to create a compromise in which, on the surface at least, no one will be a winner, but which might entail something that I’ve been proposing in different words for more than a year—namely, that there should be some sort of internationally sponsored elections in Syria, in which anyone who wishes to run can run, which in a way saves face for Assad but which might result in an arrangement, de facto, in which he serves out his term next year but doesn’t run again.

How slippery is the slope? Obama was clearly not enthusiastic about sending the arms to the Syrian rebels—he handed the announcement off to Ben Rhodes. How slippery do you think this slope is? Do you think that we are headed towards greater American intervention?

I’m afraid that we’re headed toward an ineffective American intervention, which is even worse. There are circumstances in which intervention is not the best but also not the worst of all outcomes. But what you are talking about means increasing our aid to the least effective of the forces opposing Assad. So at best, it’s simply damaging to our credibility. At worst, it hastens the victory of groups that are much more hostile to us than Assad ever was. I still do not understand why—and that refers to my first answer—why we concluded somewhere back in 2011 or 2012—an election year, incidentally—that Assad should go.

Your response earlier about Israel was quite fascinating. Do you think that if the region were to go up into greater upheaval, with a diminution of American influence, Israel would see an opportunity to consolidate its gains, or even make more radical ones if Jordan were to go up in flames?

Yes, I know what you’re driving at. I think in the short run, it would probably create a larger Fortress Israel, because there would be no one in the way, so to speak. But it would be, first of all, a bloodbath (in different ways for different people), with some significant casualties for Israel as well. But the right-wingers will feel that’s a necessity of survival.

But in the long run, a hostile region like that cannot be policed, even by a nuclear-armed Israel. It will simply do to Israel what some of the wars have done to us on a smaller scale. Attrite it, tire it, fatigue it, demoralize it, cause emigration of the best and the first, and then some sort of cataclysm at the end which cannot be predicted at this stage because we don’t know who will have what by when. And after all, Iran is next door. It might have some nuclear capability. Suppose the Israelis knock it off. What about Pakistan and others? The notion that one can control a region from a very strong and motivated country, but of only six million people, is simply a wild dream.

I guess my final question, if you think you can get into this subject, is . . . you’re sort of on the opposition bank right now. The dominant voice among intellectuals and in the media seems to be a liberal hawk/neoconservative groundswell, a moralistic call for action in Syria based on emotion. Why do you think, even after the debacle of the Iraq War, that the foreign-policy debate remains quite skewed in America?

I think you know the answer to that better than I, but if I may offer a perspective: this is a highly motivated, good country. It is driven by good motives. But it is also a country with an extremely simplistic understanding of world affairs, and with still a high confidence in America’s capacity to prevail, by force if necessary. I think in a complex situation, simplistic solutions offered by people who are either demagogues, or are smart enough to offer their advice piecemeal; it’s something that people can bite into. Assuming that a few more arms of this or that kind will achieve what they really desire, which is a victory for a good cause, without fully understanding that the hidden complexities are going to suck us in more and more, we’re going to be involved in a large regional war eventually, with a region even more hostile to us than many Arabs are currently, it could be a disaster for us. But that is not a perspective that the average American, who doesn’t really read much about world affairs, can quite grasp. This is a country of good emotions, but poor knowledge and little sophistication about the world.

Well, thank you. I couldn’t agree more.

Source; Novinite

Syria raid could trigger Russia response – Afshin Rattanzi (Britain threatening to go in with the United States to support al-Qaeda-linked militancy)

By

Press TV has conducted an interview with Afshin Rattanzi, an author and journalist in London, about the the US and its allies beating the drums of war on Syria as Afshin Rattanzi on Syriawell as warnings by other countries that such a strike would have dire consequences.

  • – On the issue of an attack, we were speaking to our correspondent and he said that a question, which was raised by a lot of reporters today in Damascus is- What would be achieved, what would be the objective of a Western-led attack in Syria?

We had some interesting remarks by Francois Hollande (French president) just now, he said that the civil war in Syria is a threat to global peace and that international law shouldn’t be used as a pretext when we are seeing massacres take place, to protect the perpetrators.

– Yes, those statements indicate that international law isn’t something that Paris is too keen on.

I’m speaking to you from London where there has been an emergency meeting taking place not a mile away from where I’m talking from. How ironic that as regards objectives that the National Security Council in Britain was set up after 9/11 to protect Britain from al-Qaeda-linked atrocities and what threatened them.

And here is Britain threatening to go in with the United States to support al-Qaeda-linked militancy. I think even American generals are expressing their concern of the objectives of any attack by these warships in the Mediterranean. What are those objectives?

  • – Yes that’s the thing. A lot of people are asking, we have to put the question of who is going to benefit from this. A lot of observers are now pointing the finger at Israel. They are asking, who could have provided these chemical substances and chemical weapons? They are saying that this is a pre-planned scenario; and Russia has also been clearly saying that.

Do you think we should be thinking about a scenario here similar for instance to the one in Iraq and that this actually could that that military attack is actually going to happen whatever the cost?

– As regards to chemical weapons usage regardless of Israel and Saudi evidence supporting the threat of war to Obama’s advisors, Samantha Powers and Susan Rice, we know who uses chemical weapons.

The CIA de-classified a document that the US told Saddam to use them against Iran. The United States used them in Vietnam and Cambodia; in Fallujah in Iraq. It’s not normal for any country except the United States to use chemical weapons; and of course white phosphorus in Fallujah.

No, I think what the international community needs to do now is urgently support, ironically, the Syrian government in their quest to destroy the al-Qaeda-linked rebels.

What started as a pro-democracy movement has deteriorated into this Islamist al-Nusra Front getting larger and larger and these governments have to get…

The chemical weapons thing is about as important as the yellow cake in … – of course those pictures were terrible and appalling, but we must stop that from happening again.

The way to stop that from happening again, one would have to say based on reports from Carla Del Ponte … being attacked – the UN weapons inspector – is to support the government of President Assad.

  • – What is your prediction for what is going to happen from this stage on? Obama has been saying that without a UN mandate we are not going to attack, but it looks like they are really prepared for it.

Do you think that even if the United Nations doesn’t say who used the weapons or doesn’t give that mandate that we are going to see a military strike?

– American television is quoting White House sources as saying that Tomahawk missiles will be fired within 48 hours.

So I suppose the important thing now is to get the relatives of the thousands of US troops on the USS Mahan and USS Gravely, the USS Barry and the USS Ramage and tell them that the ferocious attack back at them from Russian Iskander missiles will be pretty ferocious and that the United States is endangering their troops yet again in a war that will have no victors.

Bashar al-Assad: All contracts signed with Russia are implemented (exclusive interview with Izvestia,)

By

In an exclusive interview with Izvestia, President of the Syrian Arab Republic told about threat of US invasion, about his relationship with Putin and about common fate of Russian and Syrian peoples.

Bashar al-assad intervewInterviewer: Mr President, the most pressing question today is the current situation in Syria. What parts of the country remain under the rebels’ control?

President Assad: From our perspective, it’s not a matter of labelling areas as controlled by terrorists or by the government; we are not dealing with a conventional occupation to allow us to contextualise it in this manner. We are fighting terrorists infiltrating particular regions, towns or peripheral city areas. They wreak havoc, vandalise, destroy infrastructure and kill innocent civilians simply because they denounce them. The army mobilises into these areas with the security forces and law enforcement agencies to eradicate the terrorists, those who survive relocate to other areas. Therefore, the essence of our action is striking terrorism.

Our challenge, which has protracted the situation, is the influx of large amounts of terrorists from other countries – estimated in the tens of thousands at the very least. As long as they continue to receive financial and military aid, we will continue to strike them. I can confirm that there has not been any instance where the Syrian Army has planned to enter a particular location and has not succeeded in eliminating the terrorists within it.

The majority of those we are fighting are Takfiris, who adopt the al-Qaeda doctrine, in addition to a small number of outlaws, so as I said this not about who controls more areas of land. Wherever terrorism strikes, we shall strike back.

Interviewer: Yet, Western mainstream media claim that the terrorists control 40% to 70% of Syrian territory; what is the reality?

President Assad: There isn’t an army in the world that can be present with its armament in every corner of any given country. The terrorists exploit this, and violate areas where the army is not present. They escape from one area to another, and we continue to eradicate them from these areas with great success. Therefore, I reiterate, the issue is not the size of the territories they infiltrate but the large influx of terrorists coming from abroad.

The more significant criteria to evaluate success is – has the Syrian Army been able to enter any area infiltrated by terrorists and defeat them? Most certainly the answer is yes; the army has always succeeded in this and continues to do so. However, this takes time because these types of wars do not end suddenly, they protract for prolonged periods and as such carry a heavy price. Even when we have eradicated all the terrorists, we will have paid a hefty price.

Interviewer: Mr President, you have spoken of Islamist Takfiri extremists’ fighters who have entered Syria. Are they fragmented groups who fight sporadically? Or do they belong to a coherent major force that seeks to destroy the security and stability in Syria and the whole Middle East?

President Assad: They have both traits. They are similar in that they all share the same extremist Takfiri doctrine of certain individuals such as Zawahiri; they also have similar or identical financial backing and military support. They differ on the ground in that they are incoherent and scattered with each group adhering to a separate leader and pursuing different agendas. Of course it is well known that countries, such as Saudi Arabia, who hold the purse strings can shape and manipulate them to suit their own interests.

Ideologically, these countries mobilise them through direct or indirect means as extremist tools. If they declare that Muslims must pursue Jihad in Syria, thousands of fighters will respond. Financially, those who finance and arm such groups can instruct them to carry out acts of terrorism and spread anarchy. The influence over them is synergised when a country such as Saudi Arabia directs them through both the Wahhabi ideology and their financial means.

3aaddccfe668f16bba2c4bcf3c704ed6Interviewer: The Syrian government claims a strong link between Israel and the terrorists. How can you explain this? It is commonly perceived that the extremist Islamists loathe Israel and become hysterical upon hearing its name.

President Assad: If this was the case, why is it then that when we strike the terrorists at the frontier, Israel strikes at our forces to alleviate the pressure off of them? Why, when we blockade them into an area does Israel let them through their barricades so they can come round and re-attack from another direction? Why has Israel carried out direct strikes against the Syrian Army on more than one occasion in recent months? So clearly this perception is inaccurate. It is Israel who has publically declared its cooperation with these terrorists and treated them in Israeli hospitals.

If these terrorist groups were indeed hostile to Israel and hysterical even on the mention of the word as you mention, why have they fought the Soviet Union, Syria and Egypt, whilst never carrying out a single strike against Israel? Who originally created these terrorist groups? These groups were initially created in the early 80’s by the United States and the West, with Saudi funding, to fight the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. So logically speaking, how could such groups manufactured by the US and the West ever strike Israel!

Interviewer: Mr. President, this interview will be translated into several international languages, and shall be read by world leaders, some who may currently be working against you. What would you like to say to them?

President Assad: Today there are many Western politicians, but very few statesmen. Some of these politicians do not read history or even learn from it, whilst others do not even remember recent events. Have these politicians learned any lessons from the past 50 years at least? Have they not realised that since the Vietnam War, all the wars their predecessors have waged have failed? Have they not learned that they have gained nothing from these wars but the destruction of the countries they fought, which has had a destabilising effect on the Middle East and other parts of the world? Have they not comprehended that all of these wars have not made people in the region appreciate them or believe in their policies?

From another perspective, these politicians should know that terrorism is not a winning card you play when it suits you and keep it in your pocket when it doesn’t. Terrorism is like a scorpion; it can unexpectedly sting you at any time. Therefore, you cannot support terrorism in Syria whilst fighting it in Mali; you cannot support terrorism in Chechnya and fight it in Afghanistan.

To be very precise, I am referring to the West and not all world leaders, if these western leaders are looking to achieve their interests, they need to listen to their own constituents and to the people in this region rather than seeking to install ‘puppet’ leaders, in the hope that they would be able to deliver their objectives. In doing so, western policy may become more realistic in the region.

Our message to the world is straightforward: Syria will never become a Western ‘puppet’ state. We are an independent country; we will fight terrorism and we will freely build relationships with countries in a way that best serves the interests of the Syrian people.

Interviewer: On Wednesday, the rebels accused the Syrian government of using chemical weapons; some Western leaders adopted these accusations. What is your response to this? Will you allow the UN inspectors access to the site to investigate the incident?

President Assad: The statements by the American administration, the West and other countries were made with disdain and blatant disrespect of their own public opinion; there isn’t a body in the world, let alone a superpower, that makes an accusation and then goes about collecting evidence to prove its point. The American administration made the accusation on Wednesday and two days later announced that they would start to collect the evidence – what evidence is it going to gather from afar?!

They claim that the area in question is under the control of the rebels and that the Syrian Army used chemical weapons. In fact, the area is in contiguity with the Syrian Army positions, so how is it possible that any country would use chemical weapons, or any weapons of mass destruction, in an area where its own forces are located; this is preposterous! These accusations are completely politicised and come on the back of the advances made by the Syrian Army against the terrorists.

As for the UN Commission, we were the first to request a UN investigation when terrorists launched rockets that carried toxic gas in the outskirts of Aleppo. Several months before the attack, American and Western statements were already preparing public opinion of the potential use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government. This raised our suspicion that they were aware of the terrorists’ intentions to use these weapons in order to blame the Syrian government. After liaising with Russia, we decided to request a commission to investigate the incident. Whereas we requested an investigation based on the facts on the ground, not on rumours or allegations; the US, France and the UK have tried to exploit the incident to investigate allegations rather than happenings.

During the last few weeks, we have worked with the Commission and set the guidelines for cooperation. First of these, is that our national sovereignty is a red line and as such the Commission will directly liaise with us during the process. Second, the issue is not only how the investigation will be conducted but also how the results will be interpreted. We are all aware that instead of being interpreted in an objective manner, these results could easily be interpreted according to the requirements and agendas of certain major countries. Certainly, we expect Russia to block any interpretation that aims to serve American and western policies. What is most important is that we differentiate between western accusations that are based on allegations and hearsay and our request for an investigation based on concrete evidence and facts.

Interviewer: Recent statements by the American administration and other Western governments have stated that the US has not ruled out military intervention in Syria. In light of this, is it looking more likely that the US would behave in the same way it did in Iraq, in other words look for a pretext for military intervention?

President Assad: This is not the first time that the possibility of military intervention has been raised. From the outset, the US, along with France and Britain, has strived for military intervention in Syria. Unfortunately for them, events took a different course with the balance shifting against their interests in the Security Council despite their numerous attempts to haggle with Russia and China, but to no avail. The negative outcomes that emerged in Libya and Egypt were also not in their favour. All of this made it impossible for them to convince their constituents and the world that they were following sound or successful policies.

The situation in Libya also differs to that of Egypt and Tunisia, and Syria as I have said is very different from all these. Each country has a unique situation and applying the same scenario across the board is no longer a plausible option. No doubt they can wage wars, but they cannot predict where they will spread or how they will end. This has led them to realise that all their crafted scenarios have now spiralled out of their control.

It is now crystal clear to everybody that what is happening in Syria is not a popular revolution pushing for political reform, but targeted terrorism aimed at destroying the Syrian state. What will they say to their people when pushing for military intervention: we are intervening in Syria to support terrorism against the state?!

Interviewer: What will America face should it decide on military intervention or on waging a war on Syria?

President Assad: What it has been confronted with in every war since Vietnam… failure. America has waged many wars, but has never been able to achieve its political objectives from any of them. It will also not be able to convince the American people of the benefits of this war, nor will it be able to convince the people in this region of their policies and plans. Global powers can wage wars, but can they win them?

Interviewer: Mr. President, how is your relationship with President Vladimir Putin? Do you speak on the phone? If so, what do you discuss?

President Assad: I have a strong relationship with President Putin, which spans back many years even before the crisis. We contact each other from time to time, although the complexity of events in Syria cannot be discussed on the phone. Our relationship is facilitated through Russian and Syrian officials who exchange visits, the majority of which are conducted away from the glare of the media.

Interviewer: Mr. President, are you planning to visit Russia or invite President Putin to visit Syria?

President Assad: It is possible of course; however the current priorities are to work towards easing the violence in Syria, there are casualties on a daily basis. When circumstances improve, a visit will be necessary; for now, our officials are managing this relationship well.

Interviewer: Mr. President, Russia is opposing the US and EU policies, especially with regards to Syria, what would happen were Russia to make a compromise now? Is such a scenario possible?

President Assad: Russian-American relations should not be viewed through the context of the Syrian crisis alone; it should be viewed in a broader and more comprehensive manner. The US presumed that with the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia was perpetually destroyed. After President Putin took office in the late 90s, Russia began to gradually recover and regain its international position; hence the Cold War began again, but in a different and subtler manner.

The US persisted on many fronts: striving to contain Russian interests in the world, attempting to influence the mentality of Russians closer to the West both in terms of culture and aspiration. It worked diligently to eliminate Russia’s vital and powerful role on many fronts, one of which is Syria.

You may be wondering, like many Russians, why Russia continues to stand by Syria. It is important to explain this reason to the general public: Russia is not defending President Bashar al-Assad or the Syrian government, since the Syrian people should decide their president and the most suitable political system – this is not the issue. Russia is defending the fundamental principles it has embraced for more than a hundred years, the first of which is independence and the policy of non-interference in internal affairs. Russia itself has suffered and continues to suffer from such interference.

Additionally, Russia is defending its legitimate interests in the region. Some superficial analysts narrow these interests to the Port of Tartous, but in reality Russia’s interests are far more significant. Politically speaking, when terrorism strikes Syria, a key country in the region, it would have a direct impact on stability in the Middle East, which would subsequently affect Russia. Unlike many western governments, the Russian leadership fully understands this reality. From a social and cultural perspective, we must not forget the tens of thousands of Syrian-Russian families, which create a social, cultural and humanitarian bridge between our two countries.

If Russia were to seek a compromise, as you stipulated, this would have happened one or two years ago when the picture was blurred, even for some Russian officials. Today, the picture is crystal clear. Russia that didn’t make a compromise back then, would not do so now.

Interviewer: Mr. President, are there any negotiations with Russia to supply fuel or military hardware to Syria? With regards to the S-300 defence system contract in particular, have you received it?

President Assad: Of course, no country would publically declare what armaments and weapons it possesses, or the contracts it signs in this respect. This is strictly classified information concerning the Armed Forces. Suffice to say that all contracts signed with Russia are being honoured and neither the crisis nor the pressure from the US, European or Gulf countries’ have affected their implementation. Russia continues to supply Syria with what it requires to defend itself and its people.

Interviewer: Mr President, what form of aid does Syria require from Russia today? Is it financial or perhaps military equipment? For example would Syria request a loan from Russia?

President Assad: In the absence of security on the ground, it is impossible to have a functioning and stable economy. So firstly, the support that Russia is providing through agreed military contracts to help Syrians defend themselves will lead to better security, which will in turn help facilitate an economic recovery. Secondly, Russia’s political support for our right of independence and sovereignty has also played a significant role. Many other countries have turned against us politically and translated this policy by cutting economic ties and closing their markets. Russia has done the complete opposite and continues to maintain good trading relations with us, which has helped keep our economy functioning. Therefore in response to your question, Russia’s supportive political stance and its commitment to honour the agreed military contracts without surrendering to American pressure have substantially aided our economy, despite the negative bearings the economic embargo – imposed by others, has had on the lives of the Syrian people.

From a purely economic perspective, there are several agreements between Syria and Russia for various goods and materials. As for a loan from Russia, this should be viewed as beneficial to both parties: for Russia it is an opportunity for its national industries and companies to expand into new markets, for Syria it provides some of the funding necessary to rebuild our infrastructure and stimulate our economy. I reiterate that Russia’s political stance and support have been instrumental in restoring security and providing the basic needs for the Syrian people.

Interviewer: Mr. President, do these contracts relate to fuel or basic food requirements?

President Assad: Syrian citizens are being targeted through their basic food, medical and fuel requirements. The Syrian government is working to ensure these basic needs are available to all Syrians through trade agreements with Russia and other friendly countries.

Interviewer: Returning to the situation in Syria and the current crisis. We are aware that you successively issue amnesties. Do these amnesties include rebels? And do some of them subsequently change sides to fight with the Armed Forces?

President Assad: Yes, this is in fact the case. Recently, there has been a marked shift, especially since the picture has become clearer to many that what is happening in Syria is sheer terrorism. Many have come back into the mainstream of civil life, surrendering their weapons and benefitting from the amnesties to help them return to their normal lives. Most remarkably, there are certain groups who have switched from fighting against the army to fighting beside it; these people were either misled by what was propagated in the media or were initially militarised under threats from the terrorists. It is for this very reason that from the start of the crisis, the Syrian government has adopted an open door policy to all those who wanted to U-turn on the initial route they took against their country. Despite the fact that many people in Syria were opposed to this policy, it has proven to be effective and has helped alleviate some of the tension from the crisis.

Interviewer: Mr. President, Syria’s relations with several states are collapsing consecutively, such as Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Who are your true allies, and who are your enemies?

President Assad:The countries that support us are well known to everyone: internationally – Russia and China, regionally – Iran. However, we are starting to see a positive shift on the international arena. Certain countries that were strongly against Syria have begun to change their positions; others have started to reinitiate relations with us. Of course, the changes in these countries’ positions do not constitute direct support.

In contrast, there are particular countries that have directly mobilised and buttressed terrorism in Syria. Predominantly Qatar and Turkey in the first two years; Qatar financed while Turkey provided logistical support by training terrorists and streaming them into Syria. Recently, Saudi Arabia has replaced Qatar in the funding role. To be completely clear and transparent, Saudi Arabia has nothing but funding; those who only have money cannot build a civilisation or nurture it. Saudi Arabia implements its agenda depending on how much money it commands.

Turkey is a different case. It is pitiful that a great country such as Turkey, which bears a strategic location and a liberal society, is being manipulated by a meagre amount of dollars through a Gulf state harbouring a regressive mentality. It is of course the Turkish Prime Minister who shoulders responsibility for this situation and not the Turkish people with whom we share a great deal of heritage and traditions.

Interviewer: Mr. President, what makes Russian-Syrian relations so strong? Is it geopolitical interests? Or that they jointly share a struggle against terrorism?

President Assad: There is more than one factor that forges Syrian-Russian relations so strongly. First of which is that Russia has suffered from occupation during World War II and Syria has been occupied more than once. Secondly, since the Soviet era, Russia has been subjected to continuous and repeated attempts of foreign intervention in its internal affairs; this is also the case with Syria.

Thirdly but no less significantly is terrorism. In Syria, we understand well what it means when extremists from Chechnya kill innocent civilians, what it means to hold under siege children and teachers in Beslan or hold innocent people hostage in Moscow’s theatre. Equally, the Russian people understand when we in Syria refer to the identical acts of terrorism they have suffered. It is for this reason that the Russian people reject the Western narrative of “good terrorists and bad terrorists.”

In addition to these areas, there are also the Syrian-Russian family ties I mentioned earlier, which would not have developed without common cultural, social and intellectual characteristics, as well as the geopolitical interests we also spoke of. Russia, unlike the Europeans and the West, is well aware of the consequences of destabilising Syria and the region and the affect this will have on the inexorable spread of terrorism.

All of these factors collectively shape the political stance of a great country like Russia. Its position is not founded on one or two elements, but rather by a comprehensive historical, cultural and intellectual perspective.

Interviewer: Mr. President, what will occur in Geneva 2, what are your expectations from this conference?

President Assad: The objective of the Geneva conference is to support the political process and facilitate a political solution to the crisis. However, this cannot be accomplished before halting the foreign support to terrorism. We expect that the Geneva conference would start applying pressure on the countries supporting terrorism in Syria, to stop the smuggling of weapons and the streaming of foreign terrorists into the country. When this is achieved, political steps can be easily pursued, most imperative of which is initiating a dialogue between Syrians to discuss the future political system, the constitution, various legislations and others.

Interviewer: Thank you for your sincerity and for such a transparent discussion during this interview.

 

Licínia Simão. Recognition of NK depends on the Armenian lobby

By

The interview was conducted by Nvard Chalikyan
Licinia Simao Recognition of NKDr. Licínia Simão, PhD in International Relations, is an assistant professor at the School of Economics, University of Coimbra, Portugal. Dr. Simão is an expert on the EU foreign policy and the South Caucasus region.

– Recently we have been witnessing a growing interest of the EU in the South Caucasus: as you know Armenia and the EU are about to sign the EU-Armenia Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area (DCFTA) as a part of the Association Agreement. Could you comment on this process and particularly on the interests of the EU in this region?

– While speaking about the interests of the EU, it is important to understand its structure – the EU is not a state (even a state has difficulties in aligning all the positions and coming up with a vision). As for the process that we are witnessing now – the Association agreement, the DCFTA, the visa liberalization issues, etc. are very much driven by the European Commission and the leadership of the Commission provides the vision that sometimes is lacking within the member states, because they are so many; so it is hard to speak about one common interest, but as long as the Commission has this vision in place and is coherent towards its neighbors, we must see some tangible results.

Of all the steps that have been taken within the Neighborhood Policy and especially the Eastern Partnership, I would say the Association Agreement is the most consolidated; it is an important step the EU has taken, so I wouldn’t see any reason why the EU would give up this project. It can have flexibility in terms of the deadline and if you look at the 6 members of the Eastern Partnership, they stand now at different points in the process of getting to this agreement, so the Commission and the other European Institutions negotiating these agreements have also used this process of negotiation to withdraw concessions from the partner states and to consolidate a closer political relationship among them, meaning that there is a strong conditionality element ongoing now which will further increase the ties between these states.

– What significant changes is DCFTA going to entail for Armenia?

– Joining the DCFTA would mean better access of Armenian products to European markets in exchange for better access of some European products to the Armenian market. For the EU the most interesting part is the ability to invest and produce in Armenia rather than the local market as such: the market in itself is not very attractive for the EU, but the investment opportunities are. It seems to be a win-win situation as Armenia does need investment and this would open ways to other markets too. There are issues here such as sanitary and quality control, as the European market is very strict in this regard and this would mean that by following some European standards Armenia may find difficulties in entering other markets but in a way also the European standards are some of the highest in the world, so if they pass these standards they will for sure be able to enter other markets.

– Do you think the Association Agreement between the EU and Armenia is going to present a major challenge to the Russian interests in the region or not? To what extent do you think the Russian concerns in this regard are justified?

– When you look at the Russian foreign policy during the last couple of years at least, since the Eastern Partnership has become more expressive in its goals and this idea of the DCFTA became also more explicit, Russia has been concerned with this, and the Eurasian Union and Customs Union are in a way prophylactic measures to avoid greater integration of these states into the EU. I think Russia is catching up on this idea that the EU’s soft power, which is economic, is not so soft; sometimes it can have a hard effect – economic integration is harder to overturn than other types of political agreements, so I think Russia woke up to that aspect of the EU foreign policy and is now genuinely concerned. If you look at what’s going on in Moldova, Ukraine and other countries, we have the similar process where Russia is clearly saying “you are either with us or against us; we have leverage over you and we will use it”. However, Russia needs to consider also the losses of such a position in terms of its overall goals in the region. In fact what places these countries in such a hard situation is the lack of genuine dialogue between the EU and Russia. Since 2007 the two actors have been unable to coordinate their positions and genuinely engage in meaningful partnership as they call it, so the fragility of EU-Russia relations is having negative spillovers.

– We frequently hear the message that Armenia is now facing a choice between the EU and Russia, while the Armenian leaders are trying to maintain the balance. Do you think it is possible for Armenia to be economically greater integrated within the EU while at the same time to keep the strategic and military alliance with Russia? Why does Armenia necessarily have to face this “either… or” choice?

– I think the Armenian government and the Armenian foreign policy has been quite wise and successful in combining its multi-vector relations. I also think that Russia’s presence in Armenia, both the military cooperation and security assurances are important for Armenia, but they are also important for Russia. So there is also a stake for Russia in terms of the potential threat of withdrawing from Armenia or creating uncertainties… Considering the context of the South Caucasus, Russia’s presence in Armenia is extremely important for Russia. So if Russia is to make such a threat it would have to consider the losses that it would have to incur itself. I think Armenian leaders know this very well and this provides a little room for Armenia to maneuver.

– And what about the EU? After the signing of the Association agreement to what extent is it possible that the EU exerts pressure on Armenia regarding her relations with Russia?

– I think the EU is genuinely concerned about this. Of course the EU would like Armenia to be more independent from Russia, but at the same time there is a very strong understanding inside the EU and in the European capitals about the difficulties that Armenia faces. The Armenian Diaspora is an active lobby always informing the European partners on why Armenia has to take the decisions it takes. I think the EU will never demand that Armenia gives up its partnership with Russia. At the same time the EU considers the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict as a means for Armenia to obtain a greater independence from Russian support in the military sphere. So in order for Armenia to rely less on Russia militarily, the relations between Turkey/Azerbaijan and Armenia need to be normalized. Here the EU can have a greater role; as a matter of fact you cannot integrate the country economically and lack the strategic vision for the security and political issues that the country has to deal with on daily basis. If the EU manages to have a greater impact on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict resolution process then the relations between Armenia and Russia might ultimately change towards something resembling less dependence and more cooperation.

– According to the assessment of a large number of experts the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is not likely to be resolved soon. If you agree with this then what are the ways of developing the de facto NKR and promoting the well-being of its population? How can the European structures assist the NKR authorities in this process?

– It is a complicated issue for the EU. There is a US support for Karabakh, but for the EU to do something like that it has to be an official policy and the EU is not going to do it any time soon. In Georgia the EU has managed to develop a policy of engagement with the de-facto authorities of South Ossetia and Abkhazia (some small scale development projects); so in theory this is not impossible – if the EU has done it there, it could also do it here. But the development of this region will not be fostered unless they become recognized internationally (other ways of development are very limited).

– Do you see the international recognition of the Nagorno-Karabakh republic feasible given Azerbaijan’s refusal to ever recognize it?

– It depends on the Armenian lobby. We had countries recognizing Abkhasia and South Ossetia despite the opposition of Georgia… But recognition is less important by now than the development of the framework which will bring to the resolution of the conflict.

Source: Panorama.am