Is West genuinely trying to 'save' Syria?
- By Andre Vltchek
0 Comment(s)
Print
E-mail People's Daily, February 21, 2012
At the end of the last week, Chinese Deputy Foreign Minister Zhai Jun travelled to Syria to renew diplomatic dialogue with Syrian leadership, after both Russia and China vetoed a UN resolution proposed by the West and its allies in the Arab world, which was de facto calling for President Bashar al-Assad to resign.
As the Chinese diplomats were travelling to Damascus, Western mainstream press had been turning increasingly vitriolic and hawkish. Official discourses coming from the Western governments did not sound any more conciliatory. The leadership of Syria was repeatedly condemned in the strongest language possible and there has been continuous snapping at the two powers that managed to block the proposed resolution.
One should probably ask: what role is the West really playing in the conflict? Is it trying to find solutions or is it igniting the crises?
And what would the people of Syria have to pay back to Washington, London, Paris and other ‘players’ if the Assad’s government would be deposed? Even though the majority never asked for any help and probably supports the present government, it would be definitely presented with the bill. “The West”, Congolese presidential candidate recently told me, “doesn’t have friends. It only has interests.”
By now it should be obvious that the West is not known for its altruistic considerations. It does close to nothing to rescue the worst suffering countries, simply because most of them are actually suffering as a result of Western economic and geopolitical interests.
If charity would be the main goal of the foreign policy of the West, the bloodbath in Congo/DRC would end many years ago - the slaughter that took between 6 and 10 million people and is performed by close allies of the US and Europe and their multi-national companies. And the plundering of the mineral-rich Papua would also end already several decades ago.
Some 40 to 45 million people world-wide were killed after the WWII in colonial, post-colonial, neo-colonial and imperialist conflicts led or triggered by the West: in Indochina, Indonesia, Africa, Latin America, Middle East and Oceania. One could excuse those who do not necessarily trust those sudden outbursts of compassion towards the people of Middle East and would rather give peace in Syria a chance.
If, however, the ruler or leadership is antagonistic to the Western dictate and interests, all means are put to use to overthrow him. Modern history is full of examples: Dominican Republic, Chile, Indonesia, Nicaragua, Congo, and Yugoslavia to name just a few places.
Most recently it was Libya’s turn. The UN resolution was twisted by both the European Union and the US and the country was attacked illegally. In Libya, the West immediately detected substantial (but not so ample that it would represent the majority of Libyan people) opposition to Qaddafi. It cultivated it, got directly involved and then steered it to the victory. When the violence escalated (partially through the Western support to rebellion) and the situation ‘went out of control’, invasion was justified on ‘humanitarian grounds’.
Interests of the West in Libya were always clear: the oil and the important role Tripoli played in the anti-imperialist struggle on African continent. Many in Africa saw Qaddafi’s overthrow and death seen as calamity, but very few dared to speak up from fear of Western reprisal.
That is not to say that Qaddafi was not a tyrant. However, Libya under his leadership reached the highest HDI (UNDP-calculated Human Development Index) in Africa. But instead of being too preoccupied with the profits of multi-national companies, Qaddafi was busy building social net at home, which included public housing, roads, hospitals and schools. That appears to be the greatest ‘sin’. Building its own independent society and concentrating on pulling people out of poverty appears to be the most unforgiveable crime in the eyes of the Western regime.
Punishment is dreadful: officially speaking, the ‘infidel’ countries are not punished, they are ‘saved’. And the countries that were recently ‘saved’ by the West – Afghanistan (savagely brutalized since the times of its secular pro-Soviet government), Iraq, Libya, and Honduras – are today all in the most appalling state, in catastrophe much worse than before the ‘humanitarian invasion’. Their people are going through indescribable suffering; many are desperately trying to leave.
