Donald Trump authorises reckless airstrikes against the legitimate government of Syria.
Let’s stand with the legitimate government of Syria
The position of Majorityrights.com is that we have always opposed the Alt-Right and we have always opposed the Presidency of Donald J. Trump. We have been harshly rejecting Donald Trump ever since the moment that he threw his hat into the ring during the GOP primaries, because the Trump phenomenon is a viciously Zionist phenomenon which only serves the apparent interests of the United States, Russia, and Israel.
If you are reading this article, you doubtless are already aware of the events that transpired early this morning. The United States has unilaterally conducted an airstrike against a Syrian airbase. There are even rumours right now of a second airstrike being prepared.
What we know so far:
This article does not intend to offer any information that is not already in the hands of other media organisations. Rather, I intend to start a conversation on what actions need to be explored by activists from a British perspective, in order to undermine American Zionist aggression in Syria.
International armed conflict
The events that we’ve seen transpiring this morning have been deeply disturbing. According to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the situation in Syria now is officially “an international armed conflict”.
“Any military operation by a state on the territory of another without the consent of the other amounts to an international armed conflict,” ICRC spokeswoman Iolanda Jaquemet has told Reuters in Geneva. “So according to available information – the US attack on Syrian military infrastructure – the situation amounts to an international armed conflict.”
“It’s unclear how US air strikes will make civilians safer”, Lord Wood of Anfield, chair of the United Nations Association UK has said.
In a blog post, Wood wrote: “Unilateral action without broad international backing through the UN, without a clear strategy for safeguarding civilians, and through military escalation risks further deepening and exacerbating an already protracted and horrific conflict, leaving civilians at greater, not lesser, risk of atrocities.”
He added that by circumventing the UN “we reduce both legitimacy and effectiveness, as a course of action that does not have the broad support of regional powers and the international community, channelled through UN systems and processes, can have little chance of success in leading to a more stable Syria.”
Whispers in the backchannels
As far as anyone is aware of what backchannel communications have been taking place, the United States warned Russia of the attack before it took place. Additionally, Russia had signalled yesterday evening that it would not be willing to support the government of Syria under all circumstances. In other words, there are some circumstances under which Russia would undermine the interests of the Syrian government. This was an unsurprising admission, given that it was also Russia who opted to send Sergei Lavrov to barter with John Kerry to induce the Syrian government to surrender their chemical weapons deterrent in the first place.
It is interesting that surrendering their chemical weapons deterrent into the hands of Russia, has not made the Syrian government’s position safer. Rather, it has increased the incentive for America to push for opportunistic aggression against Syria, under the pretext of seizing the very weapons which Syria has already ceased to be in possession of.
It is also interesting to note that the ‘good’ relationship between the Trump administration and the Putin administration – which will probably broadly continue despite all the sternly enunciated words that are issuing forth from Russian officials today – has not led to the position of the Syrian government being any safer. In fact, it is precisely because the United States and the Russian Federation have been on good terms since Trump’s inauguration, that the probability of what has now transpired, happening, had increased.
A scenario in which the United States and Russia arrive at an agreement in which both countries have their geostrategic interests met, is a scenario in which Russia would probably turn against Bashar Al-Assad. With Trump in office, the chances of such a scenario manifesting are actually increased, because Trump has not until today presented himself as an opponent of Russia on anything, to say the least. The chances of them being able to ‘do a deal’, is greater. Russia has specific interests in Syria which do not absolutely necessitate the survival of Bashar Al-Assad’s government. Hypothetically they could be guaranteed in another way. Vladimir Putin himself signalled this yesterday evening just before the American airstrikes took place, when Vladimir Putin’s spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said, “Unconditional support is not possible in this current world.”
If the United States were to convincingly guarantee Russia’s specific interests on the Syrian territory – access to the warm-water port, a place in the pipeline consortium, a list of friendly future government figures – in some future arrangement mediated by Turkey, Qatar, UAE and Israel, via some backchannel communication, Russia might proceed to ‘take a deliberate dive to the mat’ diplomatically, and tacitly permit the United States to continue airstrikes against Syria.
People will need to watch for signs of that horrendous scenario continuing to develop.
One of the central features of British diplomacy and British foreign policy, is ‘hypocrisy’. It is not done in a haphazard way, but rather, it is done with method and purpose. It has evolved over the centuries because Britain’s stated position on any given issue – particularly when it comes to the issue of geopoliticised alleged ‘human rights violations’ – is often the opposite of what its governing instiutions have actually resolved to do, or not do.
Kerry Brown, the director of King’s College London’s Lau China Institute, once wryly referred to this behaviour as “the brilliant complexity of British hypocrisy”.
And brilliant is precisely what it is.
Today is no different. Boilerplate ‘agreement’ messages were offered by Sir Michael Fallon, presumably to stave off the American Communications Operators who would have tried to apply pressure to the British government. Giving them a statement of agreement means that there is nothing for the Americans to snappily quote and criticise in the social media domain. In actual reality, Britain is still bound by the non-intervention vote that was arrived at in parliament in 2013, and thus is not actually in ‘agreement’ with the United States.
ITV’s Paul Brand reports:
That’s basically how it is.
Standing against Islamic terror
Keeping British aircraft off the Syrian Arab Army’s back and away from its skies entirely, would give the Syrian Arab Army the space that is needed for them to keep fighting against outfits like ISIL, Tahrir Al-Sham, Ahrar Al-Sham, and all of the other Salafist-Jihadist outfits that are operating in Mesopotamia.
Those Islamist outfits are the same reactionary outfits who are constantly seeking ways to send fighters to conduct terrorist attacks across Europe and Asia.
It is better for all of us, that the Islamist reactionaries get killed in Syria at the hands of the Syrian Arab Army, than for them to be constantly free to organise terroristic actions across the world.
Bashar Al-Assad is operating one of the world’s great ideological garbage disposal services. It’s called the Syrian Arab Army. It’s very progressive. The Syrian Arab Army destroys reactionaries and traditionalists, twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, and it requires no payment for that service. I can’t think of a better deal than that.
One of the best ways to stand against Islamism, is to let Bashar Al-Assad do what needs to be done, without intervening against him.
What can you do to keep Britain safely out of this air-war?
Britain is the most consequential and capable military actor in Western Europe. Britain’s non-participation in airstrikes, not only would ensure that Britain does not end up actively participating on the wrong side of a conflict that never should have happened, it would also have a dampening effect on America’s attempt to form the ‘coalition’ that Rex Tillerson has been talking about since last night.
The question is, how can you become an active part of keeping British forces out of the air conflict? This is not exactly a difficult task, since it’s a case of simply reinforcing the status quo. The balance of forces in parliament simply needs to be maintained as it is, so that the deadlock on the issue is maintained.
This means that people need to write to their MPs, comment on social media, talk to their union leaders, and – for those who have such access, even at the local government level – engage productively in conversations with key people and keep presenting to them all of the real downsides of what intervention in the Syrian conflict could cause.
Make people aware that sentiments have not changed since 2013, and that no one wants to go to Syria to fight the Syrian Arab Army. The British public were interested in fighting against ISIL and against Tahrir Al-Sham. There is something to be strategically gained from that. There is nothing of any enduring value to Britain that can realistically be gained from fighting against the Syrian Arab Army.
It may also be a good idea to generate a list of any MPs and councillors in potentially vulnerable seats. They should be reminded that the British people have long memories, and that if any of them tries to start a parliamentary insurgency against the non-interventionist result that emerged in 2013’s vote, they should expect to be tarred on social media as being ‘a craven ally of interventionist Trump’. The threat should be formulated in such a way that it makes clear that everything will be done to try to remove those persons from their seats at the next election, if they try to bring this to a vote again. In other words, people need to make appropriate use of the space which liberal-democracy has carved out.
The Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy will not be participating in any airstrikes in Syria.
Let’s do what we can to help ensure that it really stays that way.
Kumiko Oumae works in the defence and security sector in the UK. Her opinions here are entirely her own.
Post a comment: