The obsession with war by the West seems unabated. The wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria have been nothing but disastrous to the majority of people living in those countries. The money being spent on war could have been better spent on humanity, to improve the lives of people all over the world. However, the same nations are again itching for another war.
This time it’s the turn of Syria to be attacked, using chemical weapon as an excuse. The problem is, who uses the chemical weapons. Both the rebel and the government forces have accused each other of carry-out out the chemical attack on civilians. Personally, I am more inclined to believe the rebels as the perpetrators – they have greater incentives. Government troops are already winning in most battles, and they have tanks and aircrafts to support them. Plus they are well aware that their use of chemical weapon will certainty bring-in intervention from the hostile West. The rebels on the other hand are desperate for Western intervention. The rebels are no angels either, given that they have gone on killing spree against unarmed Kurdish and other civilians. One rebel commander was shown on video to have ripped the heart of a Syrian soldier and he went on to eat it!
But without even waiting for the investigation by UN, some of the Western leaders are already calling for war against Syria. This is just another sign why the war-mongers of the West need to be leashed. It is high time that non-Western countries act together in order and speak out. It is also interesting to note that the so-called free press of the West which is supposed to be their watchdogs have failed again.
Following article in Global Times hits the nail right on the head:
Countries opposed to Syria strike must speak out
US Secretary of State John Kerry declared on Monday that there was “undeniable” proof of last week’s chemical weapons attack in Syria, and that the “moral obscenity” of the Bashar al-Assad administration “should shock the conscience of the world.” Analysts pointed out that a US strike against Syria could come “as early as Thursday.”
The so-called evidence claimed by Washington hasn’t yet been backed by UN investigations. And looking at the US’ record, it waged the Iraq War with false evidence. Nonetheless, if Washington is determined to bypass the UN and bomb Syria this time, no one will be able to stop it.
But it is set to be an unwarranted air strike which merely appears formidable. Without wide political support, it may become the most reluctant air strike since the Cold War.
The 1999 air war in Kosovo was clearly aimed at coercing Serbia’s military withdrawal from Kosovo, and Washington succeeded. And in 2011, the West launched air strikes in Libya to aid the Libyan opposition in defeating the isolated Gaddafi administration. But this time, Washington lacks a clear political end goal. Citing “moral obscenity” as an excuse to gear up for military action seems rash and hasty.
The attack on Syria, if it takes place, will encounter unprecedentedly fierce resistance. The Assad government has firm support from Russia and Iran. And the tumbling “Arab Spring” in Egypt also gives the Assad government the confidence to survive external intervention.
While Washington is seeing declining clout worldwide, Russia’s national strength is recovering and China’s global influence is climbing. Although the two do not seek direct confrontation with the West, their warnings over the strike, which are increasingly hard to ignore, do rebuff Western endeavors to solicit support.
Worldwide forces that oppose military intervention should unite and prevent the Western attack on Syria. If the strike takes place, they should openly support the resistance by the Syrian government. It is necessary for Russia and Iran to consider providing direct military aid. As key stakeholders in the Syrian dynamic, the two have no other choice but to firmly oppose military intervention in Syria.
China is unlikely to play a leading role in the Syria issue, but China must express its attitude on the Western strike more clearly than ever. The ensuing strategic benefit is important for Beijing, especially given the fact that the West is gradually targeting China as the “biggest potential threat.” For China, the Syrian crisis will not change its strategic relations with the West, but will help consolidate trust from some other countries.
When it comes to strikes against small countries, Washington is more hesitant than two decades ago. The world should continue to pressure Washington and push it toward a position where it shrinks back from overwhelming odds. This is very important for the strategic security of emerging countries.