Monthly Archives: September 2015

The West’s responsibility for the slaughter in Syria

The West’s responsibility for the slaughter in Syria
by Ian Sinclair
Morning Star
24 September 2015

In a recent editorial the Guardian argued that “when debating the Syrian war, it is important to discriminate between the various external state involvements.” For the Guardian “Russia has a special responsibility” because it is “much more implicated – directly and indirectly – in the massacre of civilians.”

By arming Bashar al-Assad’s government and protecting him diplomatically, Russia certainly bears significant responsibility for the thousands of Syrians slaughtered by their government forces in airstrikes, artillery bombardments, small arms fire and summary executions – all extensively documented by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. However, as a British citizen I share responsibility for the actions of the UK Government and its allies. This is because I pay my taxes and, more importantly, have immeasurably more power to influence UK Government policy than I do the Russian Government. As the US dissident Noam Chomsky noted: “It’s a very simple ethical point: you are responsible for the predictable consequences of your actions, you’re not responsible for the predictable consequences of somebody else’s actions.” The same logic, of course, should apply to British journalists and British newspapers.

So what has the UK and its allies been up to in Syria? And do we bear any responsibility for the on-going war that has killed more than 220,000 people and forced over four million to flee the country.

According to Ian Black, the Guardian’s Middle East Editor, “Russia has supported Assad, while the US advocates a political transition to end his rule while backing armed opposition groups.” Compare this subtle propaganda to a recent report – also in the Guardian – that noted Russia proposed a peace deal in February 2012 in which Assad would step down. According to the person leading the negotiations, the former Finnish president and Nobel peace prize laureate Martti Ahtisaari, the US, UK and France ignored this offer because they “were convinced that Assad would be thrown out of office in a few weeks.” Hugh Roberts, the former Director of the North Africa Project at the International Crisis Group, echoed Ahtisaari’s testimony in the London Review of Books in July 2015. “The Western powers… sabotaged the efforts of the UN special envoys, Kofi Annan and then Lakhdar Brahimi, to broker a political compromise that would have ended the fighting”, Roberts wrote. “Western policy has been a disgrace and Britain’s contribution to it should be a matter of national shame.”

As Black mentions, isolated media reports have shown the US, often supported by the UK and working with Turkey and many of the Gulf monarchies, has been helping to arm and train the Syrian rebels since summer 2012. For example, in September 2013 the New York Times explained “Saudi Arabia, quietly cooperating with American and British intelligence and other Arab governments, has modestly increased deliveries of weapons to rebels fighting in southern Syria”. This was done covertly, Syrian rebel groups told the New York Times, because US and UK intelligence did not want their support publicly known.

Moreover, the West has been arming the rebels in the full knowledge that the insurgency was increasingly dominated by extremist groups. After “extensive interviews with Syria policymakers from the Obama Administration” McClatchy’s Hannah Allam recently noted Obama’s government “was warmed early on that al Qaida-linked fighters were gaining prominence within the anti-Assad struggle.” Similarly, a recently released formerly classified US Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) report noted that from atleast August 2012 the West knew “the Salafists, the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI [Al-Qaeda in Iraq]” were “the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria”. The US’s support for “the crazies” in Syria was confirmed by General Michael T. Flynn, the Director of the DIA from 2012-14, in an interview with journalist Mehdi Hasan on Al-Jazeera in July 2015.

By 2013 an analyst with the private intelligence firm Stratfor had already concluded that “the current level of external intervention in Syria is similar to the level exercised against the Soviet Union and its communist proxies following the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan.” Two years later in June 2015 the Washington Post was quoting US officials as saying “the CIA has trained and equipped nearly 10,000 fighters sent into Syria over the past several years.”

These inconvenient facts are presumably why in April 2015 Peter Ford, a former UK ambassador to Syria, argued “we are… arsonists, causing the situation to deteriorate by indirectly giving succour and encouragement to the Islamists.”

Not that you would know all of this from reading British newspapers. Other than a few honourable exceptions, journalists have repeatedly downplayed the scale of Western intervention in Syria. A Guardian editorial earlier this month referred in passing to “the refusal [of the West] to intervene against Bashar al-Assad”, while in August 2015 the Guardian’s foreign affairs commentator Natalie Nougayrède chastised Obama because he had “refrained from getting involved in Syria.” In the US Matt Schiavenza wrote an article in the Atlantic magazine titled Why The US Can’t Build An Opposition Army in Syria which, incredibly, failed to mention the 10,000 rebels the US claims to have armed. Over at the Brookings Institution Shadi Hamid argues the US has been “opting to remain disengaged in Syria”. How, I wonder, would these commentators describe a foreign power arming and training thousands of rebels intent on overthrowing the UK or US governments?

Contrary to the actual actions of the West in Syria, much of the reporting and analysis of the mainstream press has presented a false narrative of Western inaction and benevolence. This blackout of reality raises huge questions about the quality and purpose of our so-called free and rambunctious media, our democracy and our foreign policy. How, for example, is the general public supposed to understand our own role in exacerbating the refugee crisis if they are not aware of it? As David Yelland, the former editor of the Sun, once said “People attack papers for what they print. But what they don’t print is often the bigger story.”

Ian Sinclair is the author of The March That Shook Blair: An Oral History of 15 February 2003, published by Peace News Press.

Advertisements

Book review. Rebel Footprints: A Guide To Uncovering London’s Radical History by David Rosenberg

Book review. Rebel Footprints: A Guide To Uncovering London’s Radical History by David Rosenberg
by Ian Sinclair
Red Pepper
August-September 2015

Rebel Footprints is effectively two books woven into one. First, in response to the statues celebrating imperialist and ruling class men that dominate the streets of London David Rosenberg has written an exciting radical history of the capital. In addition, interspersed throughout the lively prose are delightful practical walking guides that the reader can use to explore the rousing accounts of resistance and rebellion Rosenberg has unearthed.

Focussing on the hundred year following the widespread disappointment of 1832’s so-called Great Reform Act, the book honours those who refused to accept the poverty-ridden, undemocratic status quo and who, as one newspaper said of Labour MP George Lansbury, were “impatient to put the world right.”

Refreshingly, Rosenberg balances familiar names, organisations and protests with lesser known history. Who knew that in response to the huge Chartist demonstration on Kennington Common in 1848 the Queen was evacuated to the Isle of Wight and 3,000 soldiers were sent to London? The dissidents of Clerkenwell and Bloomsbury gets a chapter each – but so does the relatively unknown socialist agitation in Battersea which led to the election of London’s first Black mayor and first Communist MP. Turning to the women’s vote, Rosenberg skirts past Emmeline Pankhurst’s Women’s Social and Political Union to highlight the work of her pacifist, class-conscious daughter Sylvia and the East London Federation of Suffragettes.

Rosenberg is an enthusiastic and knowledgeable guide who is particularly good at showing the myriad of links between different campaigns. For example, as well as agitating for votes for women with the Women’s Freedom League, the vegetarian activist Charlotte Despard also set up a community centre, campaigning for socialist causes and Irish Home Rule.

“London remains a vibrant and rebellious city”, Rosenberg concludes, pointing to the Occupy camp outside St Paul’s Cathedral and “the uprisings” in Tottenham in the 1980s and 2011. With a Tory majority Government elected in May, Radical Footprints will hopefully inspire people to fight back against the next five years of austerity-driven class warfare.