Reporting Syria propaganda style

While claiming no originality, having drawn heavily on other commentaries, this is an attempt to clarify critical issues lost or distorted by selective reporting and propaganda that is served up as news about the conflict raging in Syria.

Reporting of Syria

Syria is an “evil”, repressive, authoritarian regime against which an opposition has developed. In 2011, challenged by large-scale demonstrations, the government did finally come up with a reform programme. The opposition rejected this out of hand, and, meanwhile, armed gangs have been killing soldiers, police and civilians almost from the outset.

Syria's President Bashar al-Assad is from Syria's minority Alawite sect and he has filled senior political and military posts with Alawites to impose his rule through sectarian loyalty. Sunni Muslims make up 74 per cent of Syria's 22 million population, Alawites 12 per cent, Christians 10 per cent and Druze 3 per cent. Ismailis, Yezidis and Jews make up the rest.

The Arab League Peace Plan is simply regime change. The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), which consists of a six-member council that includes Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, is actually being influenced by the powerful Qatar and the House of Saud.

The GCC created an Arab League group to monitor events in Syria. When the monitors (over 160), after one month of enquiries, issued their report it did not follow the official GCC line - that the "evil" Bashar al-Assad government is indiscriminately killing its own people and must stand down. Rather it reported that there was no organised killing of peaceful protesters by the Syrian government.

Instead, it pointed to armed gangs as responsible for hundreds of deaths among Syrian civilians, and over one thousand among the Syrian army. And it came to the conclusion: “In some cities, the Mission sensed the extreme tension, oppression and injustice from which the Syrian people are suffering. However, the citizens believe the crisis should be resolved peacefully through Arab mediation alone, without international intervention. Doing so would allow them to live in peace and complete the reform process and bring about the change they desire…”

The Arab League's Ministerial Committee had approved the Report, with four votes in favour (Algeria, Egypt, Sudan and GCC member Oman) and only one against- Qatar. But it was ignored or denigrated by Western and Arab media. As the Report complained: “Since it began its work, the Mission has been the target of a vicious media campaign…”.

The Report was not even discussed, as GCC leaders (House of Saud and Qatar) went directly to their real objective, to impose a NATO-GCC regime change via the U.N. Security Council. Saudi Arabia, the world's top oil exporter, has long been hostile to President Bashar al-Assad because of his alliance with its regional archrival Iran.

The Syrian National Council

The exiled opposition leadership is composed of a number of disparate, often squabbling groupings, with the Syrian National Council (SNC) claiming umbrella status andattempting to model itself on Libya's Transitional National Council. It is based in NATO member countries, and is calling for direct international intervention.

Inside the SNC, the Muslim Brotherhood is the best organised element of the opposition.

NATO-US Intervention

The U.S. government has been waging a long and expensive covert campaign to overthrow the Assad regime, according to American diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks. Given the interventions prior to the actual invasions of other countries, it seems likely that as former Central Intelligence Agency officer Philip Giraldi claims in The American Conservative, December 19, 2011:“NATO is already clandestinely engaged in the Syrian conflict, with Turkey taking the lead as U.S. proxy…Unmarked NATO warplanes are arriving at Turkish military bases close to Iskenderum on the Syrian border, delivering weapons…as well as volunteers from the Libyan Transitional National Council…French and British special forces trainers are on the ground, assisting the Syrian rebels while the CIA and US Spec Ops are providing communications equipment and intelligence to assist the rebel cause…”.

Giraldi adds that CIA analysts know that the frequently cited U.N. account of civilians killed is based largely on rebel sources and uncorroborated. Likewise, accounts of pitched battles between deserters and loyal soldiers"appear to be a fabrication, with few defections being confirmed independently. Syrian government claims that it is being assaulted by rebels who are armed, trained, and financed by foreign governments are more true than false.”

The Free Syrian Army: Who are the rebels?

According to Pepe Escobarof the Asia Times, “Syria's top military - also members of the Ba'ath Party - are almost all Alawis, the folk Shi'ite sect (10 per cent of the overall population). They are not defecting. The defectors are overwhelmingly Sunni troops (70 per cent of the overall population); they are forming militias, Libya-style, heavily infiltrated by mercenaries weaponised by the GCC, and fighting government troops. The government's response has been to target the neighbourhoods where the families of these defectors live. The centre of Homs nowadays is controlled by the rebels.”

Outlawed since its terrorist campaign in 1977-1982, the Muslim Brotherhood has two prime objectives: the destruction of the Baathist government and the replacement of the secular state by an Islamic system. And to add to the potent mix, Osama bin Laden’s successor as head of al Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahiri has exhorted Muslims to back the Syrian rebels. The two recent bombings in the suburbs of Damascus and the suicide bombing in Aleppo suggests that infiltrated jihadists are already at work.

The U.N. Resolution

It was unilateral demanding nothing from Syrian anti-government armed groups. United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called the double veto a "travesty", and called for a coalition of "friends of a democratic Syria" to coordinate efforts to remove Assad from power. But this insistent Western demand that “Assad must step down” is not really a call for “regime change”, but for regime self-destruction.

As in Libya, the country would be turned over to rival armed groups, but with sectarian strife much more horrific than the chaos in Libya. Syria has long had a tolerant attitude toward religious minorities, but, now, interventionists are ignoring warnings that ifthe Assad  regime falls to Islamists, there may well be a massacre of Christians.

Anti-Russian Rhetoric

The West`s propaganda barrage depicts Russia as the obstacle to democratic reforms and change in the Middle East. The SNC now holds Moscow and Beijing "responsible for the escalating acts of killing and genocide", and facilitators of a "license to kill". 

Russian Vested Interests in Syria

Syria hosts Russia's only naval base in the Mediterranean, in the port of Tartus, and Syria buys Russian weapons, though on a modest scale when compared with the gigantic US arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States. As important, Russian leaders are still smarting after being hoodwinked by the U.N. resolution on Libya. Furthermore, Russia is currently the target of an extraordinary propaganda campaign demonizing Vladimir Putin as he enters the presidential elections. Such outside interference will steel Putin to exploit every opportunity to demonstrate masterful leadership and defend his country’s interests against Western pressure.

Israel and the Complex Regional Strategic Equations

To oversimplify a very complex situation: the destruction of the Baathist government would be a strategic victory of great value to the US and Israel. The central pillar in the strategic relationship between Iran, Syria and Hezbollah will have been destroyed, leaving Hezbollah and Iran more exposed to a military attack by the U.S. and Israel. And this “shift in the balance of power” envisioned by U.S. strategists will reduce Russia`s influence in the region, and sooner rather than later, that of China- hence the proxy status of Syria.

US v Russia

Relations have deteriorated. The American-Russia talks on the ABM are deadlocked, as Washington rejects Moscow's plea for a legally binding guarantee that the US's ABM deployments in Europe will not impact Russia's strategic deterrent. As Dmitry Rogozin, Russia's deputy prime minister, protested in Moscow recently: the US and its NATO allies at present have 1,000 missiles capable of intercepting Russia's intercontinental ballistic missiles, covering all European Russia up to the Ural Mountains. Further: “There are no guarantees that after the first, second, and third phases [of the US' ABM project] are completed, there will be no fourth, fifth and sixth...Were the United States able to effectively shield itself from a potential Russian response to a U.S. nuclear First Strike, the U.S. would be able simply to dictate to the entire world on its terms, not only to Russia.” This scenario, in military terms, would be “Nuclear Primacy”, long sought by U.S strategists.

Also central to the conflict is control of Central Asia’s vast oil and gas reserves, which has intermittently raged as an undeclared war. Buoyed by access to these resources, Moscow has reacted strenuously to military encirclement and incorporation of former Soviet states into NATO.

Russia and China

As a major customer of Iranian oil, China does not approve of Western sanctions against Tehran, and, internationally, it is irked  further by US attempts to contain its influence in the Asia-Pacific regionwith the latter's declaration of its "strategic turn to Asia”.The Beijing newspaper, The Global Times also pointed out recently that the US's belligerent projection of military might increasingly leaves Beijing and Moscow with no choice but to react: “So far Moscow and Beijing are relatively restrained, though NATO seeks to expand its strategic presence in East Europe and U.S. strengthening its military alliances in Asia. But the two cannot fall back forever…in both countries, an increasing number of people now advocate a Moscow-Beijing 'alliance'…If they are really determined to join hands, the balance of power on many world issues will begin to shift.”

The Russian and Chinese double veto on the U.N. Syrian resolution represents a co-ordinated move to challenge the US on its triumphalist march from Libya toward Syria and Iran, with Syria seen as critical in the West's agenda to retain the Middle East as their sphere of influence.

Global Strategic Imperatives

In order to maintain its political and economic hegemony across the world, it is necessary for American government to contain potential military, economic, or political rivals that might threaten U.S. dominance in any of these fields. As a necessary consequence, the U.S. must seek access to the vast oil and mineral wealth of the Middle East and Central Asia, whatever the cost of wars and regime changes.

Still relevant today is the 2002 Bush administration publication “National Security Strategy of the United States of America.” And in making the claim to global hegemony, the document points out that “The United States possesses unprecedented - and unequaled - strength and influence in the world.” In fact, as of 2010,US military spending was about 43 per cent of the world total. Historically, defense-related spending in the United States is at its highest inflation-adjusted level since World War II, and  at 31 December 2010, U.S. Armed Forces were stationed in 150 countries, andthe U.S. has an unrivalled capacity to project its military power world wide.

The Outcome?

Mounting casualties with escalating hatred is reducing the chance of a negotiated settlement in Syria. Today, in mid February, full scale civil war seems inevitable. The crisis is both internal and international, complicated by thedifferent long-term geopolitical agendasof the major parties. While the Libyan strategy of capturing territory and then securing “no-fly-zones” is unlikely to succeed, “humanitarian intervention” is on the cards. Meanwhile, as the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has warned, while Russia “will do its best to avert a heavy-handed interference in Syria…Russia cannot prevent a military intervention in Syrian affairs if this decision is made by some country.”