Syria: Who Condems the Opposition?

Russian President Vladimir Putin hit the nail on the head this Thursday when, during a debate in Moscow, he said the West insists on taking strong measures against the government of Syria based on its use of chemical weapons in districts on the periphery of Damascus, but noted that “no one says what we will do with the opposition” — in the event that these armed gangs were the ones that carried out the chemical weapon attacks.

Putin affirmed that [Russia] had such a plan in place because it doubts whether Bashar Assad’s government is really responsible. He pointed to the evidence that an antique Soviet projectile (one which had been retired from army arsenals many years ago) had been used. And Putin should know this very well, as Russia is the principle arms supplier to Syria.

Putin also made references to U.N. inspector reports about the use of chemical weapons on Aug. 21, and asked why U.N. inspectors “hadn’t investigated previous allegations of similar attacks”* — precisely the accusations made by the government of Damascus — and why they weren’t taken into consideration by the U.N., who only sent experts to Syria in August of this year, where the chemical weapons attack took place “by chance” on Aug. 21.

Neither Washington nor its NATO allies possess reliable evidence to back up their accusations against Bashar Assad. Bashar Assad has recently ratified his compromise to fulfill the agreement to turn in his country’s chemical arsenal. He noted that their destruction will have a high economic cost and has asked whether the United States is willing to back them up and bear the cost, estimated at around $1 billion . Syria has also presented its application to sign onto and abide by the statutes and regulations of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), which Russia had invited them to do.

Nevertheless, those in the United States who wish to aggressively open the door for new war expansion in countries of the East are continuing to apply pressure. Senator John McCain, for example, reiterated — without certain proof — his affirmations that “Bashar Assad has massacred 100,000 people. The conflict is spreading … the Russians are all in, the Iranians are all in and it’s an unfair fight.”

Micah Zenko, an analyst with the U.S. think tank Council on Foreign Relations says the assertion of the Republican senator contradicts the documented investigation of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which shows that half the deaths in Syria have occurred within the ranks of the armed forces and the militias of Assad.

These are the numbers presented by the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights: 40,146 civilians; 21,850 armed opponents, identified as “rebels”; 45,469 soldiers and militiamen; 171 Hezbollah militants and 2,726 people who have not yet been identified. This makes a terrible total of 110,362 deaths, a figure that renders unjustifiable the continuation of this conflict, a blood bath that defines the urgent necessity to look for a political solution rather than revenge, as claimed by the war hawks.

The group of hawks who came out to defend shooting missiles against Syria include two ex-secretaries of George W. Bush, the son who left an inheritance to Obama as secretary of defense: Robert Gates and Leon Panetta. They appeared together in Dallas to criticize the U.S. president who had asked Congress for authorization to use force against Syria. He believed that a simple military coup would not be effective and if they threatened Syria with one, they would have to attack.

Neither McCain nor Obama, neither Kerry nor Gates, nor the roaring of Leon Panetta had taken into account the fact that the majority of U.S. and European citizens are opposed to an intervention in Syria. This was further clarified by the Transatlantic Trends survey, released on Wednesday by the German Marshall Fund of the U.S. and the Compagnia di San Paolo,** two private foundations that measure public opinion in 11 countries within the EU, as well as Turkey and the U.S.

The investigation found that 62 percent of Americas and 72 percent of Europeans think their countries should avoid conflict with Syria. Only 33 percent within the U.S. and 22 percent in Europe would support the intervention.

To continue the war would mean an end to any possibility of a diplomatic solution and would foster the increase of fatalities. Whatever the origin of victims or perpetrators, it would be a crime against humanity.

*Editor’s note: The original quotation, though accurately translated, could not be verified.

**Editor’s note: This is a private, secular banking foundation in Italy, internationally known by its Italian name.