Will Syria’s Chemical Weapons Create a New Yalta?

Edited by Thomas Phippen

I have a strong conviction that Putin and Obama’s meeting on the sidelines of the G-20 conference in St. Petersburg led not only to an agreement on transferring Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal to international supervision, in preparation for their destruction at the beginning of next year, but that this agreement also encompassed numerous regional and international issues, including Iran’s nuclear weapons, Palestinian-Israeli political compromise and North Korea’s nuclear weapons.

This agreement is dictated by conditions, in an effort for the Russian bear to reclaim his vigor and impose himself as a potent contender for world leadership over the United States. The United States would not have backed down from a military strike were it not for Syria’s persistence and the support of its regional and international allies (Iran, Russia, China and North Korea). After establishing itself as a global policeman with its aggression in Iraq, the United States lost its power and control. Meanwhile, its wars overseas exhausted the economy, which in turn caused the global capitalist financial crisis of 2008. The United States claimed that it needed another war in order to get out of this crisis and to cement its unilateral control of the world. However, the circumstances which enabled the United States to inflict its aggression on Iraq no longer exist, and in light of the change in situation, a war in Syria is not guaranteed. The United States has failed to achieve its aims, such as ensuring Israel’s security and providing for America and Western Europe’s oil needs. The United States also failed to persuade the Russians — by way of Bandar bin Sultan, the godfather of the war in Syria — to withdraw their support of the Syrian regime in exchange for $15 billion and other economic incentives. [United Nations Under-Secretary General for Political Affairs Jeffrey] Feltman, the engineer of the U.S. Middle East policy, and the U.S. envoy to Oman both failed to convince Iran to cut off its support for the Syrian regime. In exchange, Iran was offered the lifting of international sanctions and would receive influence in Syria, Lebanon and Palestine, similar to the deal made with Iraq. Pressures on Hezbollah to neutralize its stance were also unsuccessful.

The United States has felt that war with Syria may further diminish its international status and feels it must concede that its unilateral global control is no longer feasible. Alliances and global economic conglomerates are forming: In addition to the Russian-Chinese-Indian alliance and that of the BRICS nations [Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa], there is a conglomerate in Latin America, as well as in Russia, China, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, and in even more alliances forming in Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Mongolia and other nations.

All of these conglomerates have come to be a formidable match for the European Union and the United States, and they inevitably will lead to international changes and the re-division of the world between Russia and the United States. During World War I, the Western colonial powers divided the world among themselves and Britain secured its global leadership role. However, Britain’s harsh dominion over the world, coupled with the wars it waged and its interference in numerous nations, exhausted its economy and led to the Great Depression in 1929. This depression meant that the capitalist nations had to to wage wars to get out of the crisis, leading to the rise of the Nazis in Germany and the fascists in Italy and Spain. Through World War II, which the United States entered into later [than other nations] and during which it launched atom bombs in Nagasaki and Hiroshima, the United States was able to seize global dominion from Britain and thus become the world’s police. The wars the United States waged caused the overthrow of democratically elected governments in favor of dictatorships who walk in their footsteps and serve their interests. America has forced legitimate international organizations such as the Security Council and the General Assembly into submission to serve their political interests. The United States has not paid attention to decisions of the General Assembly which conflict with their own interests.

Likewise, the piratical global trade institutions, banks, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund have served U.S. policies and interests. However, the United States’ involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq greatly exhausted its economy. During the global financial crisis of 2008, the mouthpiece of the United States would intone that the capitalist nations were in need of a war to exit the crisis in order for the United States to regain its unilateral global domination. However, the actual events on the ground turned out differently. There are no guarantees that the United States will emerge from this war as a leader of the world, nor is there a guarantee of Israel’s security or of the continuous flow of oil as a vital energy lifeline to the West. So, the United States began to think of new ways to extricate itself from its predicament and thus readied its fleets, warplanes and battleships to strike Syria. [The threatened attack on Syria] was in punishment for Syria’s supposed use of chemical weapons. The attack was also supposed to ensure Russia would extend a lifeline to the United States in the form of the proposal to place Syria’s arsenal under international supervision, in preparation for their eventual destruction at the end of next year. The international agreement would not have taken place without a high cost, had the United States been able to wage a destructive war on Syria.

It is true that this agreement guarantees Israel’s safety from Syria’s chemical weapons. However, it does not protect Israel from Syria’s missile arsenal, nor does it dismantle Syria’s alliance with Iran and Hezbollah.

I remain fully convinced that many developments will accompany the U.S.-Russian agreement: developments and flip-flopping of roles and stances, as well as attempts to adapt to new developments. Likewise there will be U.S.-Russian progress in reproducing the Yalta agreement, redividing the world yet again. However, the division process will not give the United States the lion’s share, and it will no longer be the leader of the world; rather it will become another pole in a multipolar world in which Russia advances toward global dominion, marking the end of the Age of America.

About this publication

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply