Thursday, February 09, 2012

More on the hipocricy and ignorance on Syria

In yesterday's entry I linked to an article by Daniel Greenfield in which he gives a fairly realistic view on Syria. There is another part worth mentionig in it, one that shows the absurdity of pushing for a UN resolution on Syria calling for a regime change:

A closer look at the whole process reveals the ridiculousness of it. The Security Council Resolution calling for peaceful democratic change was co-sponsored by Saudi Arabia, which is an absolute monarchy, and which recently used tanks to suppress protests in Bahrain. As the driving force behind the Arab League, Saudi Arabia was the key player in moving for regime change in Libya. Now it has rubber stamped regime change in Syria.

But why are we expected to take a call by one tyranny for the overthrow of another as a moral duty. As bad as the Assad regime is, Syria is marginally more open and democratic than Saudi Arabia is. And unlike Saudi Arabia, it isn’t an Apartheid state that treats non-Muslims and women like dirt. If we were going to implement regime change on the basis of democracy and human rights, we would start with the Saudis.

Of the Muslim co-sponsors of the UN Resolution, virtually all of them have suppressed opposition movements and imprisoned political dissidents. Bahrain is another co-sponsor of the resolution and the only difference between it and Syria, is that Bahrain is a Sunni minority ruling over a Shiite minority, while in Syria it’s the other way around. Kuwait ethnically cleansed the Palestinians back in the nineties. Turkey is still conducting an occupation and murdering Kurdish civilians. Libya doesn’t have an actual elected government, but it’s still somehow sponsoring UN resolutions for regime change in another country.

Of the nine Muslim co-sponsors that have actual governments… eight are monarchies. Most are even absolute monarchies. The only quasi-democracy on the list is Turkey which has prisons filled with dissidents, persecutes minorities and continues to deny its genocidal actions. Not to mention its violation of UN resolutions on Cyprus.

Muslim absolute monarchies are calling for implementing democratic change in Syria. Did monarchies which torture and execute dissenters expected anyone to believe that they were concerned because the Assad family was killing opponents of the regime? Two of the co-sponsors had been doing the same thing last year. One of the co-sponsors is busy torturing former members of its regime right now.

The UN Resolution was based around the Plan of Action of the League of Arab States based on an observer mission to Syria headed by General Mohammed Ahmed Mustafa al-Dabi. Al-Dabi headed up the Sudanese genocide, he is the pet thug of Sudan’s indicted war criminal leader, Omar al-Bashir and helped create the Janjaweed rape squads.

Obama has been on the record opposing any military intervention in Sudan, despite the fact that an actual genocide did take place there. But now we are being led by the Gulf Cooperation Council members into another regime change plan. The loudest voice calling for military intervention is Sheikh Hamad Al-Thani, the fat smirking thug running Qatar.

Another of the Al-Thani clan, who serves as foreign minister, said, “We ask that the Syrian regime leave and hand over power. We are with the Syrian people, with their will and with their aspirations.” The Al-Thanis, who rule in an absolute monarchy, are the last people to be cheering on the aspirations of the people. The Al-Thanis can’t see the people from their palaces.

So ridiculous, it isn't even funny. We live in the era of tribal morality, where good is when we rob the neighbouring village while evil is when the neighbouring village robs us. Principles? We don't need no stinkin' principals!

As for the ignorance part of the title, be sure to read an article by Yedidya Atlas at Frontpage Magazine titled "Who are the Syrian people?" in which he expands on the argument Greenfield mentioned in his article.

Wednesday, February 08, 2012

Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind

Russian foreign minister was spot on: the West's reaction to yet another joint Russo-Chinese veto on Syria is hysterical. And pathetic to boot. There is no other word to describe the western diplomats' temper tantrums comparable to those of a child that has just been deprived of it's favourite toy.

Honestly, after Lybia, what did they expect? That their waxing about "poor unarmed Syrian civilians opressed and murdered by that evil dictator Asad" was going to be credible? The nonsense of it all id not lost on Daniel Greenfield, who writes:

If anyone is to blame for Russia and China’s vetoing of the Syria resolution in the UN Security Council, it’s Barack Obama. Last year the United States and the Arab League brought forward a No Fly Zone to the UN Security Council. Instead of enforcing a No Fly Zone, Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy instead used it as an excuse for an invasion and regime change. If Russia and China refused to take another plan from the same suspects at face value, the blame lies with an administration that abused a No Fly Zone.

The message from Russia and China is fairly clear. Fool me once, shame on you. But don’t even think about trying it twice.

I would, however, argue, like I did back in October, that the Russians and the Chinese were anything but fooled and that back then as well as now they knew exactly what they were doing. To them, Assad is a bigger asset then Ghadafi was and they acted accordingly. This simple notion of action being driven by national interest is something US/NATO can not swallow. But their musings replete with ideological cliches are among clear thinking people met with a mixture of bemusement and derision, as Caroline Glick notes:
Most US leaders have used rhetoric to explain their policies. But if you take the Obama administration's statements at face value you are left scratching your head in wonder. Specifically on Syria, if you take these statements literally, you are left wondering if Obama and his advisers are simply clueless. Because if they are serious, their indignation bespeaks a remarkable ignorance about how decisions are made at the Security Council.
Outside the intellectual universe of the Obama administration - where stalwart US allies such as Hosni Mubarak are discarded like garbage and foes such as Hugo Chavez are wooed like Hollywood celebrities - national governments tend to base their foreign policies on their national interests.

In light of this basic reality, Security Council actions generally reflect the national interests of its member states. This is how it has always been. This is how it will always be. And it is hard to believe that the Obama administration was unaware of this basic fact.

Sadly, Glick contradicts herself in the rest of the article by lamenting over Obama not "stopping Asad from killing the people of Syria". For a dose of reality we go back to Daniel Greenfield:

And who are the Syrian people anyway? Is it the Sunnis or the Alawites or the Christians? This isn’t a civil war between a dictator and his people, no matter how often the media and foreign policy experts will repeat the lie, it’s a religious conflict between a ruling Shiite splinter sect and Sunnis backed by Turkey and Arabian Gulf monarchies.

For all the talk of replacing Assad with an inclusive system based on elections, this will mean majority rule and the disenfranchisement of non-Sunnis, non-Muslims and women at the hands of the rebels handpicked by Turkish ruling Islamist party and the Emir of Qatar. Egypt’s democracy led to an Islamist parliament. There is no reason to expect a Syrian election not to lead to the same thing.

As the old saying goes, one should be careful what one wishes for because it may just come true. But how can one reason with people that do not learn not only from sayings but even from real-life experiance? The warnings similar to that of Greenfield will be either ignored or shouted down by screeching propagandists and later vindication will be scant consolation since the consequences of ideologically-driven ill-concieved policies will be to grave for people to dwell on past warnings.