Dr Sahib Mustaqim Bleher
Today, 6 July, Paris is hosting a third meeting of the so-called
"Friends of Syria" group, another coalition of the willing and coerced,
as part of the ongoing propaganda war to aid the reshaping of the Middle
East in the interest of American imperialism - a project begun with
9/11 and the conquest of Iraq and Afghanistan.
The group of "friends" is
essentially made up of two constituents: those who want to profit from
the pillage and those who want to avoid or at least delay being pillaged
themselves. Most of the attending Arab countries fit in the latter
category, painfully aware that the "Arab Spring", the subterfuge for
catapulting American-friendly Muslim Brotherhood governments (for
details of that cozy relationship see my book "Surrendering Islam
power through engineered popular unrest, could also engulf them any
time they step out of line.
The situation of Syria is constantly
being presented as a civil unrest having turned into a civil war with
international humanitarian intervention required in order to counter
government oppression. It is a re-run of the same model of regime change
having been accomplished in Libya, except that this time Russia and
China are no longer standing by altogether naively.
There is a
lot which doesn't add up with this story broadcast throughout the loyal
media outlets. How does civil unrest turn into civil war without the
outside supply of arms? We do not expect oppressed people suffering
under the yoke of cruel dictatorship to have acquired machine guns and
heavy artillery from their local grocery store. So Western governments
are arming the Syrian opposition, which makes the moralising of Hilary
Clinton about Russia supporting the Syrian government and thereby
prolonging the suffering sound rather hollow.
I do not for a
moment deny that there are grievances the Syrian people have. But by
turning dissatisfaction into an armed rebellion the West is guilty of
destabilising the country. Of course, that is exactly, what they wanted
to do, but it is not justifiable by international standards. I do not
know of any country where there are no grievances. If Russia and China
armed dissidents in the US or had armed last year's rioters in Britain,
would that have given them the right to demand that Obama or Cameron
must go and hand over to the protesters in the interest of world peace?
Will the people of Tunisia, Egypt and Libya be grateful for having been allowed to exchange regimes that have outlived their usefulness with new American-groomed collaborators brought into power
through engineered social unrest followed by the farce of allegedly
"democratic" elections held under ex-constitutional arrangements for
which the people never voted? Only time will tell, but history does not
hold out much promise for the people of those countries. Nobody, of
course, wants us to relativate emotionally charged propaganda slogans by
looking at history.
What is difficult to understand is, however,
why the Russian bear and the world's leading economy of China are so
subdued and quiet on the matter. They're not attending the "Friends of
Syria" conference, but they're not challenging it either.
In Libya they
allowed themselves to be tricked by blindly believing the West would
gentlemen-like honour assurances and international agreements and would
not violate the sanctity of nation states by open military intervention
to depose the existing government without at least the pretence of a
threat to their own security. In the case of Syria, they no longer nod
through an elastically worded UN security council resolution which can
be used to give them the green light to send in the bombers. But they
are nonetheless allowing themselves to lose the propaganda war
those two countries - the only ones capable of counter-balancing the
American-Israeli hold on world affairs - stop being defensive and launch
their own propaganda offensive
, they will continue to be seen as the
villains stubbornly standing in the way of a just world peace
. What is
it that stops them pointing the finger at Western nations arming the
militias set up to overthrow the Syrian government? What is is that
stops them naming names and exposing the supply routes? What is it that
stops them challenging the American vision of world hegemony directly?
Is it that because they are not part of the English-speaking world that
they underestimate or misjudge the potency of Western propaganda?
that they do not understand sufficiently that for Western democracies
those lies are essential in order to keep their own populations on side
without having to reign them in through oppressive emergency laws and
increased police powers readily available through anti-terrorism
legislation? And having to do that would divert resources from meddling
Or do they still trust the West more than they should?
has been at war throughout her history, and except for the war of
independence, all those wars were fought on other people's soil. The
American empire has now finally reached the stage of decline and
impending collapse, but it won't go quietly. As if to hold on for dear
life, her leaders have gone on another rapid and rampant expansion drive
and have begun to reshape Asia and Africa politically and militarily,
and maybe the weakening of Europe through its financial crisis is also
part of the plan.
By entering into an alliance with Russia as well as
challenging the supremacy of the dollar through a number of direct
currency deals, China has finally upped the game. For years, China and
Russia have sat back to led the West bleed itself out through
overstretch. Confucian or Taoist as that may be, today, that strategy is
no longer enough to prevent serious damage
. Whilst it is sensible to
tire out an opponent, sometimes you have to block or even strike so as
not to get hurt yourself
. What China and Russia need to understand is
that winning the propaganda war can sometimes prevent having to fight
the shooting war or, at least, it will provide an advantage in it. And
the language of propaganda is English.