British Prime Minister Theresa May has been warned by various political leaders in Britain not to rush to attack Syrian government forces if she wins the general election in June. The Guardian reported that she might hold a vote on military action this summer. If this is the case, it would imply that she wants to press ahead without UN backing.
May appears to want the support of parliament to have the freedom to join US in airstrikes against Syria in the event of another chemical attack. This is despite the fact there is no concrete evidence that Syrian forces carried out such a recent attack, just as there was no evidence to support similar claims in 2013 when David Cameron tried but failed to get parliamentary approval to bomb Syria.
Taking about the chemical attack that occurred on 4 April in Khan Sheikhoun in Syria, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said:
“We think it would be constructive for the UN Security Council to accept a resolution that would not only investigate the incident but the accusations against Damascus. We have different facts, we don’t want to impose them but we stand for objective, impartial, honest investigation.”
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has cautioned May against unilateral military action in Syria:
“We don’t need unilateral action. We need to work through the UN but, above all, we need to bend ourselves totally to getting a political settlement in Syria.”
As with Iraq in 2003, the clear danger is that ‘evidence’ is being cooked up to fit a preconceived policy; in this case, the removal of Assad from power which was planned as far back as at least 2009: Syria is essentially a ‘war for energy, capital and empire‘.
The demonisation of Putin and Russia
Since Russia intervened at the behest of the Syrian government, the Syrian conflict has swung away from the opposition (terrorist) groups which the US has been supporting to defeat Assad, an ‘unspoken truth’ in the mainstream media (see ‘The Dirty War on Syria‘). However, the US seems increasingly desperate to intensify its military intervention to bring its plan for Syria and the wider Middle East region to fruition. This does not just mean attacking Syrian government forces. It also involves putting pressure on Russia to step aside.
Last month, Russian President Vladimir Putin was told by the UK ambassador to the United Nations Matthew Rycroft that he is on the “wrong side of history” because of his support for the “barbaric” Syrian leader Bashar Assad. Rycroft added that supporting the Assad regime would result in “shame” and “humiliation” for Russia.
Rycroft said the Security Council had been “held to ransom by Russia’s shameless support for the Assad regime.” He added that Russia’s credibility and reputation across the world have been poisoned by its toxic association with Assad.
It might appear to some that Rycroft resides in an alternative universe. Where is the credibility and reputation of the US given its destruction of Panama, Yugoslavia, Libya, Iraq and Syria (see ‘Five Invasion Plots, Three Continents, Identical Lies‘)? Where does its reputation lie when much of the world beyond the bubble Rycroft exists in recognises that the US has supported terror groups to destroy Syria?