By Paul Iddon
China, Russia and the Iranian regime should not be condemned for their policies vis-á-vis Syria.
The Syrian conflict persists, the country is rapidly descending into utter despair, her cities have been bombed, shelled and largely churned to rubble, over 250,000 Syrian citizens are homeless, or are being hosted in refuge camps abroad. In excess of 20,000 people have been killed. Both the army and the armed opposition have committed heinous crimes against the Syrian people.
In the midst of such horrors it is essential that one gauges ones condemnation soberly. Looking at Iran's relation to all of this one easily can see the heavy realpolitik motive of the regime supporting its only real ally in the region, even if such realpolitik renders its rhetoric utterly nonsensical.
Similarly the Russia and China's vetoing the United Nations Security Council Resolutions condemning Mr. Assad are understandable, and don't constitute aggression against the Syrian people. Russian arms supplies to Syria since this crisis began haven't increased nor decreased, the Russians are simply steadily supplying spare parts to the Syrian military, the Syrian military isn't being supplied with any new military hardware -- let alone any new hardware in bulk -- to enable it to enhance its abiliy to seek out and eliminate the various insurgent groups across the war ravaged state.
In the broader outlook being presented to us about the Syrian conflict a lot of attention is focused in particular on Assad's brutal means of suppression and the sectarian makeup of the country, hence the idea that the Alawaii minority is being pitted against the Sunni majority. An often neglected feature of the country's ethnic makeup is that of its Kurdish population, which constitutes about 8% of the total population.
The Syrian Kurds are currently in a de-facto truce with the regime. An interesting feature of their outlook on this whole thing is their total bewilderment at the idea of Turkey caring in the slightest of human rights for Syrians after the way the Kurds have been treated at the hands of the Turks in the past. In fact the Syrian Kurds have made it clear that it will fight on the side of the regime if Turkey militarily intervenes in the conflict – which it would probably do under the pretext of a humanitarian intervention to establish humanitarian safe zones in order to protect civilians against Assad's forces.
In the 1990's during the conflict between the Turkish state and the PKK the Turks (after declaring the Kurds to be their own people) carried out an extensive campaign against the predominately Kurdish populated south-eastern Turkey. This campaign saw to – among other sordid exploits – the killing of 50,000 Kurds and the destruction of some 3,000 villages – several of which were completely obliterated from the air -- which in turn saw to the displacement of some 2 million Kurds. All of this was done under the same pretext that Assad is using for his oppressive means, to deny the “terrorists” a foothold -- in Turkey back then it was the PKK, in Syria today it is the 'Free Syrian Army'. The United States during this time supplied Turkey with an unprecedented amount of military hardware and ordnance which was decisive in enabling them to carry out that highly destructive campaign.
The United States along with the other bloc of the Security Council (the U.S. - Western Europe bloc that favours condemning Assad and have contemplated intervention on the side of the oppositional elements) should stop trampling upon the collective and cooperative ability and resolve of the international community to broker a ceasefire by providing effective humanitarian aid to the Syrian civilians who are caught in the crossfire and are struggling to survive. This would be a more humanistic approach that wouldn't constitute aggression against the Syrian state -- which the funneling of arms to the Syrian opposition by U.S. regional allies does.
It is clear that the Iranian Revolutionary Guards have advisers on the ground in Syria providing the Assad regime with means in which to suppress and crush insurrections across the country. They are also more than likely aiding the Syrian Republican Guard in cyber-related activities – most likely in order to prevent the organization of anti-regime demonstrations in Damascus, etc.
We should tell the truth about Assad and his heinous crimes and exploits, but we should also comprehend and recognize the variety of factors that shape these decisions that are being made by the China and Russia bloc of the Security Council as well as the ones of the Iranian regime -- which is trying its utmost to 'cash in' on the ongoing hysteria over that 18-minute anti-Islamic film, which has offended some Muslims in Egypt, Libya and Yemen, by increasing the amount of its silly bounty on Salman Rushdies head.
Condemning the presiding regime in Tehran for its support and aid to Assad is pointless and counterproductive, what would be productive would be to officially support the likes of the brave Bahraini human rights activist Abdulhadi Khawaja (whose courage and determination should have made him a household name in the part of the world that prescribes to value the spread of democracy). We should do that instead of pointing the finger at the current rioters and malcontents who are trying to justify their petty vandal behaviour by stating it is a direct result of them being deeply offended by that inflammatory film. The 'enlightened' and supposedly 'civilized' and 'liberal' west really needs a more educated and deeper outlook on such developments, instead of an outlook shaped on hollow perceptions and shallow obscurantists. Such outlooks -- depressingly -- have once again prevailed in the mainstream.
The Iranian regime with its pathetic attempts of masquerading to be Islamic discreetly welcomes the mental formation of such misleading misconceptions, which is why it embraces and encourages such obscurantist Islamists wherever they sprout up, to foster the said hollow perceptions and in turn sully and demonise Muslims everywhere.
Operating behind-the-scenes while the western mainstream shines its narrow spotlight on these jesters are the true Iranians, the patriots, whose forefathers pioneered the pivotal ideas that built the foundations of civilization that people the world over take for granted.
These are the people who will be the first to put their lives on the line and fight off any attackers and defend their homeland. Any person professing to be civilized should deeply respect these people as they are the ones that should represent Iran for what it truly is. We should stop energizing and exciting the theocrats with our contempt for them, and instead energize and encourage the true nationalist and patriots of Persia with our support and heartfelt understanding.
China, Russia and the Iranian regime should not be condemned for their policies vis-á-vis Syria.
 |
| China and Russia have vetoed Security Council Resolutions condemning Assad. |
In the midst of such horrors it is essential that one gauges ones condemnation soberly. Looking at Iran's relation to all of this one easily can see the heavy realpolitik motive of the regime supporting its only real ally in the region, even if such realpolitik renders its rhetoric utterly nonsensical.
Similarly the Russia and China's vetoing the United Nations Security Council Resolutions condemning Mr. Assad are understandable, and don't constitute aggression against the Syrian people. Russian arms supplies to Syria since this crisis began haven't increased nor decreased, the Russians are simply steadily supplying spare parts to the Syrian military, the Syrian military isn't being supplied with any new military hardware -- let alone any new hardware in bulk -- to enable it to enhance its abiliy to seek out and eliminate the various insurgent groups across the war ravaged state.
In the broader outlook being presented to us about the Syrian conflict a lot of attention is focused in particular on Assad's brutal means of suppression and the sectarian makeup of the country, hence the idea that the Alawaii minority is being pitted against the Sunni majority. An often neglected feature of the country's ethnic makeup is that of its Kurdish population, which constitutes about 8% of the total population.
The Syrian Kurds are currently in a de-facto truce with the regime. An interesting feature of their outlook on this whole thing is their total bewilderment at the idea of Turkey caring in the slightest of human rights for Syrians after the way the Kurds have been treated at the hands of the Turks in the past. In fact the Syrian Kurds have made it clear that it will fight on the side of the regime if Turkey militarily intervenes in the conflict – which it would probably do under the pretext of a humanitarian intervention to establish humanitarian safe zones in order to protect civilians against Assad's forces.
In the 1990's during the conflict between the Turkish state and the PKK the Turks (after declaring the Kurds to be their own people) carried out an extensive campaign against the predominately Kurdish populated south-eastern Turkey. This campaign saw to – among other sordid exploits – the killing of 50,000 Kurds and the destruction of some 3,000 villages – several of which were completely obliterated from the air -- which in turn saw to the displacement of some 2 million Kurds. All of this was done under the same pretext that Assad is using for his oppressive means, to deny the “terrorists” a foothold -- in Turkey back then it was the PKK, in Syria today it is the 'Free Syrian Army'. The United States during this time supplied Turkey with an unprecedented amount of military hardware and ordnance which was decisive in enabling them to carry out that highly destructive campaign.
The United States along with the other bloc of the Security Council (the U.S. - Western Europe bloc that favours condemning Assad and have contemplated intervention on the side of the oppositional elements) should stop trampling upon the collective and cooperative ability and resolve of the international community to broker a ceasefire by providing effective humanitarian aid to the Syrian civilians who are caught in the crossfire and are struggling to survive. This would be a more humanistic approach that wouldn't constitute aggression against the Syrian state -- which the funneling of arms to the Syrian opposition by U.S. regional allies does.
It is clear that the Iranian Revolutionary Guards have advisers on the ground in Syria providing the Assad regime with means in which to suppress and crush insurrections across the country. They are also more than likely aiding the Syrian Republican Guard in cyber-related activities – most likely in order to prevent the organization of anti-regime demonstrations in Damascus, etc.
We should tell the truth about Assad and his heinous crimes and exploits, but we should also comprehend and recognize the variety of factors that shape these decisions that are being made by the China and Russia bloc of the Security Council as well as the ones of the Iranian regime -- which is trying its utmost to 'cash in' on the ongoing hysteria over that 18-minute anti-Islamic film, which has offended some Muslims in Egypt, Libya and Yemen, by increasing the amount of its silly bounty on Salman Rushdies head.
Condemning the presiding regime in Tehran for its support and aid to Assad is pointless and counterproductive, what would be productive would be to officially support the likes of the brave Bahraini human rights activist Abdulhadi Khawaja (whose courage and determination should have made him a household name in the part of the world that prescribes to value the spread of democracy). We should do that instead of pointing the finger at the current rioters and malcontents who are trying to justify their petty vandal behaviour by stating it is a direct result of them being deeply offended by that inflammatory film. The 'enlightened' and supposedly 'civilized' and 'liberal' west really needs a more educated and deeper outlook on such developments, instead of an outlook shaped on hollow perceptions and shallow obscurantists. Such outlooks -- depressingly -- have once again prevailed in the mainstream.
The Iranian regime with its pathetic attempts of masquerading to be Islamic discreetly welcomes the mental formation of such misleading misconceptions, which is why it embraces and encourages such obscurantist Islamists wherever they sprout up, to foster the said hollow perceptions and in turn sully and demonise Muslims everywhere.
Operating behind-the-scenes while the western mainstream shines its narrow spotlight on these jesters are the true Iranians, the patriots, whose forefathers pioneered the pivotal ideas that built the foundations of civilization that people the world over take for granted.
These are the people who will be the first to put their lives on the line and fight off any attackers and defend their homeland. Any person professing to be civilized should deeply respect these people as they are the ones that should represent Iran for what it truly is. We should stop energizing and exciting the theocrats with our contempt for them, and instead energize and encourage the true nationalist and patriots of Persia with our support and heartfelt understanding.
11 comments:
Paul, Iran actually has closer ties to Iraq than it does to Syria.
@ Mark Pyruz
Wholly agreed, however those ties are for the most part economic as far as I know, the Iranian regime relies more on Syria to maintain its proxy Hezbollah as a military force to be reckoned with in Lebanon. As well as this the Iran-Syria alliance has its origins from the early days of the present regime in Tehran. Such a long-lasting strategic military alliance could arguably -- with regard to strategic military alliance and cooperation -- make Assad's Syria a more closer, trusty and reliable long-time ally of Iran's than the Maliki government in Baghdad.
That's more the kind of relationship I was referring to, but nevertheless you're right in your assessment.
Cheers,
Paul
"Iran actually has closer ties to Iraq than it does to Syria."
I doubt Iran has closer ties to Iraq than to Syria.
Hezbollah is the out most importance to the Islamic regime. And the only way to deliver arms or support to them without being checkmated is through Syria.
That means if Assad's regime is ousted the Lebanese opposition to Hezbollah will be more effective in dealing against that organization.
Nicely written, and if one doesn't stop to remind oneself that the Assad dictatorship came to power in a coup and maintains a police state at the expense of the Syrian citizenry, one might forget to remember that there's no reason NOT to overthrow it and to hold those who support it in contempt.
One might even fail to understand that
" The United States along with the other bloc of the Security Council (the U.S. - Western Europe bloc that favours condemning Assad and have contemplated intervention on the side of the oppositional elements) should stop trampling upon the collective and cooperative ability and resolve of the international community to broker a ceasefire...'
is pretty much a crock ....
perhaps the author of that crud could demonstrate how the resolve of the "international community" to broker a ceasefire and explain how CONTEMPLATING intervention trampled on that will?
Some people might to well to remember that several attempts to cease the slaughter were rebuffed by the Assad dictatorship early on and it was only as it became probable that they were not going to be able to kill and torture their way out of things and retain absolute ower did they even start pretending that they were open to making a deal.
To address Anon 6:01 PM
perhaps the author of that crud could demonstrate how the resolve of the "international community" to broker a ceasefire and explain how CONTEMPLATING intervention trampled on that will?
The sentence below the sentence you quoted states -- unambiguously I must say -- that: "This would be a more humanistic approach that wouldn't constitute aggression against the Syrian state -- which the funneling of arms to the Syrian opposition by U.S. regional allies does."
The Syrian state apparatus is indeed a barbaric and tortuous one headed by a man who it wouldn't be a stretch to call a war criminal. That and how the United States and the aforementioned Western European states have contemplated military intervention are two separate issues.
My contention is that supporting a ragtag group of rebels (several of whom are foreign Jihadists) undermines ones own claim to be able to lawfully intervene as humanitarian arbiters. Lest we forget that Russia only last year backed the UN Security Council resolutions 1970 and 1973 that called for the establishment of no-fly-zones over Benghazi to protect civilians from Col. Gaddafi's air force. Russia was only later angered by the manner in which the US, UK and France unilaterally went whole hog in militarily bringing about regime change (something I was still for mind you).
We shouldn't allow policy initiatives against Syria undermine and divide the UN Security Council. We're contributing to a proxy war that is bringing more pain to the Syrian people -- not to mention destruction and economic ruin to their country. Instead of doing that we should be pursuing policies of arbitration, we shouldn't be sneering at the Russians and the Chinese, we should get off our pedestal and stand firm in telling Assad to cease his murderous rampages. If he doesn't then a unified Security Council mandated military intervention would be the next logical step. But even that is something that anyone who knows the slightest thing about Syria are saying could very possibly worsen the crisis rather than mitigate it.
Again, believe me, my blood was boiling over every time I saw that murderer Assad making a complete idiot out of Kofi Annan in order to buy more time to crush his opposition and negotiate on terms he could be assured he had plenty of leverage on.
What a beatuful discussion between themselves !!
The language's value and composition of your article exceed those in the NYT, WSJ or the Atlantic. Beside of that, there has been a bias which may not exceed ones in those publications.
However, so far nobody; in the past and present articles or blogs, dedicated sufficient efforts
to deal with the situation and human rights in Bahrain as compared to Syria.
Is it that way, because some of you depend on the KSA and US, not excluding financial matters?.
Iran helps Syria, because it has a right to do that.
Iran does it primarily for the military reasons and in order to project extended defenses of the Islamic Republic.
Like you said, Turkey killed 50000 Kurds and so far most of you are very gentle if not friendly toward that country. You even consent that Turkey may lead and establish "humanitarian zones".
President Assad have attempted to create secular and modern state; and as so far,it has been only in few places of the ME or Northern Africa, where significant mixture of religions and ethnic groups exists.
In the propaganda against Assad frequent argument has been used that he favors his religious Alawite minority..
If someone analyzes closer that argument, this person can find that last two prime ministers ( were Sunnis) and many politicians as well as other ministers represent other groups than Alawites. Previous defense ministers were chosen from other minorities, including Sunnis and Christan.
Gen. Mustafa Tlas(s), a Sunni, and the father of recent deserter Gen. Manaf Tlas(s),had served for many years as a country defense minister and during recent summer attended Syrian military exercizes; while his son contemplated a departure from country because he was not promoted...and he "has liked Riviera".
Current top military leadership is mainly composed of persons which are not from the Alawite minority.
Finally, to my best knowledge Assad's wife Asma, was born in a Sunni family...
Dissident
@ Dissident
First of all thank you for the nice comment and thanks for reading, very much appreciated.
Just one point in your comment, I didn't say I consented to the idea of Turkey forming humanitarian zones (my main argument is that the west is undermining its ability to do so by arming one faction of this murderous war, I'm quite opposed to that), I said they will probably militarily intervene under that stated pretext if they are to intervene at all.
Cheers,
Paul
Anon 4:48 AM
"Iran helps Syria,because it has the right to do that."
----------"Dissident"------------
No,Iran has no right to assist a murderous fascist regime in the genocide of the Syrian people.
Note:Dissident means a person at variance against own countries established authority.
Going by your post,you're no "Dissident".
Stop making a fool of yourself!
--- My contention is that supporting a ragtag group of rebels (several of whom are foreign Jihadists) undermines ones own claim to be able to lawfully intervene as humanitarian arbiters. ---
and my answer is that "supporting" them is entirely ethical as they were being killed, in great numbers, by an illegitimate regime prior to their BECOMING rebels and long before the US contemplated supporting them... .
Your claim that we by supporting the rebels we are " bringing more pain to the Syrian people -- not to mention destruction and economic ruin to their country. " is rather feeble and requires a suspension of fact and logic.
the pain and suffering was brought on by the regime and by its use of torture and murder as a response to protest calling for political rights for the citizenry.
do you require that the correct response to Assad's criminality is to require that the citizens acquiesce to naked force and accept being murdered by the dictator?
do you insist that fighting back to depose the dictatorship brings more suffering than submitting to slaughter by the dictatorship at the pleasure of the dictatorship?
I would claim that it's no more unlawful and no more a cause of suffering for other nations to support the rebels than it was to support the French Resistance during WWII
and finally, you offer a ludicrous false alternative as there is no possibility of a Security Council-authorized military invasion as Russia has already shown via veto.
i have a bit of difficulty in understanding how claim to understand the vile actions and nature of the Assad dictatorship but refuse to support supporting the Syrian citizenry's right to rid themselves of it by fighting back against it.
@ Anon 2:23 PM
From the top.
"supporting" them is entirely ethical as they were being killed, in great numbers, by an illegitimate regime prior to their BECOMING rebels and long before the US contemplated supporting them... .
Yes, it only seems like yesterday that Obama's benevolent, ethical, democracy-promoting foreign policy saw to him reaching out an arm to the (as you rightly say illegitimate) Assad regime from Cairo in the latter days of the lifespan of the US-backed Mubarak regime there. Also, the US and UK I recall recently offered clemency for the butcher Bashar (I'm sure he still has the option of not facing imprisonment and trial for war crimes if he just agrees to leave Damascus and go live with his uncle -- the orchestrator of the Hama massacre -- in London or something).
Your claim that we by supporting the rebels we are " bringing more pain to the Syrian people -- not to mention destruction and economic ruin to their country. " is rather feeble and requires a suspension of fact and logic.
That's like dismissing the likes of Denis Halliday (I shan't dare compare myself to such a man of principal) for his assertion back in the 1990's that the UN mandated sanctions on Iraq were because they contributed to the impoverishment and starvation of hundreds and thousands of Iraqis because the stated justification for their implementation was the containment of Saddam Hussein (who was still able to maintain his hold of relatively supreme power and dominance over a populace that was impoverished and lived in sheer abjection -- same will be the case with Assad if such sanctions are introduced in Syria under the present regime -- as my Iraqi mate whose childhood was robbed by those harsh sanction days wholeheartedly agrees).
What requires "a suspension of fact and logic" is assuming with all these facts in mind that the broad umbrella of the armed opposition is interchangeable with Syrian citizenry. You seem to have glossed over the point that a lot of these rebels are foreign Jihadists who have designs for the Syrian state that are to say the least quite a distance from a democratic society that respects civil and human rights.
I'm opposed to the Iranian regime for its crimes against the Iranian people, but that doesn't mean I am a supporter of the likes of the PMOI by definition, which judging by your comment is the kind of line of thought you think constitutes logic.
do you require that the correct response to Assad's criminality is to require that the citizens acquiesce to naked force and accept being murdered by the dictator?
No of course not.
do you insist that fighting back to depose the dictatorship brings more suffering than submitting to slaughter by the dictatorship at the pleasure of the dictatorship?
Sorry, I'm gonna need a lot more context to address that question properly.
I would claim that it's no more unlawful and no more a cause of suffering for other nations to support the rebels than it was to support the French Resistance during WWII
I think if the Shah had opted for a bloody suppression to the end in 1979 that would be an apt comparison to the situation in Syria -- hence it would have been ones moral duty to support the Iranian people and the revolutionaries. Syria isn't occupied by a foreign power. But there are domestic collaborative elements in Syria who support proxy intervention by foreign regional powers who are engaged in proxy battles in that country for their own hegemonic and geopolitical reasons (Saudi Arabia, Qatar support for rebels vs. Iran support for Assad). This is another aspect of the conflict that is highly disturbing, and is in fact adding to the bloodshed I mentioned.
Believe me, you'll see some serious resistance if there is a military invasion (Security Council authorized or not).
...Anon 2:23 PM continued
and finally, you offer a ludicrous false alternative as there is no possibility of a Security Council-authorized military invasion as Russia has already shown via veto.
i have a bit of difficulty in understanding how claim to understand the vile actions and nature of the Assad dictatorship but refuse to support supporting the Syrian citizenry's right to rid themselves of it by fighting back against it.
I said Security Council backed humanitarian intervention, nothing about an invasion, I think that should be a last resort -- if even a resort -- as anyone who knows anything about Syria -- as I've already said -- is saying we have every reason to believe that military intervention will exacerbate the crisis. I think we should stop undermining the viability of an effective UN-mandated humanitarian intervention by turning a blind eye to the blatant regional proxy war that the US's ally the KSA is engaged in in Syria at present (KSA intervention in Syria precedes the Assad's dynasty rule there) through these rebels -- whose backgrounds are to say the least questionable.
I support supporting those Syrians wanting to rid Syria of that ghastly regime, I feel the same for brave dissidents around in the world -- in places like Bahrain. I don't believe I said anything to the contrary of that stance? That's not a contradiction, what difficulty in understanding exactly are you having?
The ragtag rebel groups aren't in themselves Syrian citizenry. Syrian citizenry for the most part are the people being forced out of their homes, the ones who have in the hundreds of thousands become refuges in their own country and in scores of hundreds to thousands been killed.
Post a Comment