Western hypocrisy and the forgotten people of Syria

              Power, you know, is a curious disease. It makes you feel virtuous, urges you to use that power, selectively, on imaginary threats, encourages you to build more power and more importantly makes you think you are superior to others and that you have the right to intervene in the lives of others. The United States of America is afflicted by such a disease. This contagious disease originated from the UK and France, past superpowers and faltering economies who still wish to think they are powerful. These self proclaimed Guardians of the World see no use for the designated Guardian, the United Nations, in running the affairs of the world.

                We are of course talking about Syria, a country torn due to a mismanaged version of the mismanaged Arab Spring. It is being destroyed from within and outside, with rebels being aided by the Western and allied powers and the government supported by Russia and Iran. Education system is dead, economy has collapsed, inflation has shot up, hospitals are destroyed and government mechanisms do not exist anymore.

                Compare the following two quotes.

"When you start talking about chemical weapons, in a country that has the largest stockpile of chemical weapons in the world, where over time, their control over chemical weapons may erode, where they're allied to known terrorist organizations that, in the past, have targeted the United States, then there is a prospect, a possibility, in which chemical weapons that can have devastating effects could be directed at us. And we want to make sure that that does not happen.”

"Iraq has chemical and biological weapons, that Saddam has continued to produce them, that he has existing and active plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be active within 45 minutes. . .and that he is actively trying to acquire nuclear weapons capability”

            Don’t they sound very similar and very similarly far-fetched? The second was from the speech given by Tony Blair to the British people to justify the Iraq War and the first was by Barack Obama. Yes, the only Nobel Peace Prize Winner to head a country that owns as many nuclear weapons, fighter planes and warships that all other countries combined. The Peace Prize laureate also abandoned a country they invaded with the most absurd of claims, is planning to abandon the next and lost their Ambassador in another misstep in a third.

It was actually fascinating to observe how “evidence” of chemical use by Syrian government flowed from “traces” to “mostly credible” to “undeniable” over a couple of weeks. The evidence is anyways based on Israel’s intelligence, questionable sources amongst the rebels and the fact the UN officials were too late to reach the spot. Interestingly, Al-Qaeda is fighting with the rebels as is the USA. Till recently, Al-Qaeda was Enemy No.1 for the US, but now has apparently been usurped by the Hezbollah.

So, what are the less absurd reasons that US has now to attack Syria?  

•  Syria has violated the Chemicals Use convention which it never ratified anyway
• Syrian weapons will land into the hands of people who may hurt United States and its allies. This obviously means Israel, but no-one seems to remind the President that Al-Qaeda can also end up controlling the weapons
• Iran will become more powerful, an obvious paranoia that Israel is obsessed with
• The President’s ego is at stake. Syria has refused to heed his warning, it has to be punished. Well, yeah, Obama is the presiding deity of Syria
• The UN Security Council motion will be vetoed by Russia and China, which, in essence, means they won’t be deceived like with the Libyan Resolution

And what are the reasons quoted by the US politicians and media against US unilateral military action? 

•   American soldiers’ life will be at stake. John Kerry has this wise solution that we will bomb Syria from our safe Nuclear warships stationed all across the Mediterranean Saudi Peninsula 
•  This is an action without a plan
•  Will put tremendous stress on the US economy
•  We do not have UK to share our burden
•  But McCain takes the cake here. He says that the action is not hawkish enough, that the attacks have to be heavier, more disproportionate

        Did any of you here notice that Syrian people, their well being or their wishes have not been mentioned in the entire discourse at all? At best, it appears as a footnote.

What is the plan of action? What will happen after you destroy the chemical weapons? What if Iran gets involved in the War? What do the people of Syria want? What about the rebels? What after Assad? Do we have any plan for the Syrian people’s health or education? What about Democracy in Syria? What are the lessons from Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya?

There are no answers to these. Actually, the western powers act as if these questions don’t exist at all.

             Amidst all this, two questions arise. If a couple of countries can assume control of the world, what is the United Nations for? If the IBSA countries have to rise above the current level of emerging nations, what is their role in these conflicts? Does it end with statements like “exercise caution” and “adhere to people’s aspirations”?

              

           Well, as I said, Power is a curious disease. Rome, Greece, Spain, the Papacy, Britain and USA have behaved the same way. 100 years hence, when China or some other country rules the world, I am afraid they will behave the way. History repeats itself.