Friday, 10 February 2012


'UK hands playing in the region goes back a long time ago'

After the US, UK and their Persian Gulf allies’ failure to ratify an anti-Syria resolution at the UN, Britain and Qatar have taken the initiative to directly help the armed gangs in Syria, to force President Assad to step down, hoping to break the resistance bloc in the region.

Press TV has conducted an interview with Sukant Chandan to ask his opinion on the Western-backed Syrian unrest.

What follows is an approximate transcript of the interview.

Press TV: What is your reaction to this piece of news regarding the Israeli source revealing that UK and Qatar having troops on the ground in Syria, working with; it terms them rebels; the Syrian government has said the armed gangs and terrorists against the Syrian army.

Chandan: Perhaps the DEBKAfile website is not the most reliable of sources for this information.

But frankly we do not really need this latest piece of source from this website to show us the obvious of what’s been occurring.

I’m actually reminded back in 2006, when the Zionist state conducted its brutal aggression against Lebanon, and when the Lebanese Islamic resistance Hezbollah defeated them in that chapter of resistance.

I’m reminded when Israel dropped thousands of leaflets onto the people of south Lebanon, depicting a picture where basically Iran and Syria and Hamas and Hezbollah were all united, and they were obviously presenting it as a negative thing.

So, when Israel is dropping that kind of propaganda along with its bombs in 2006, we can see now that same strategy, which was encapsulated in that leaflet, is exactly what has been developing in Syria, i.e. that the strategic aims of the opposition foursquarely into harmony with the Zionist and Western imperialist agenda alongside the Qatari and other Persian Gulf States, and Turkey agenda, in relation to Syria.

The Washington Post opinion piece just a few days ago admitted that actually the Western interest in Syria has nothing to do with democracy, and it has all to do with weakening the steadfast bloc or resistance bloc or whatever you call it in the region, that is Iran, Syria and Hezbollah, mostly.

And also we’ve in recent days from Israeli television; senior members of Israeli government have admitted that they have been in touch with the Syrian opposition, discussing a post-Assad scenario in Syria.

The deputy prime minister of the Zionist state has made it clear that basically he’s envisaging a post-Assad scenario where he doesn’t see the post-Assad regime being a radical Islamic threat to the Zionist state.

So, also you can go back to the beginning of the protest last year in Syria and where the American ambassador to Syria was involved in the opposition protests.

So it’s not exactly a great Chinese wall between all of the evidence that I’m putting towards you, in supporting the Syrian opposition, to then actually supplying the more armed elements of the Syrian opposition, the elements of the Syrian opposition which does want the regime change by means of NATO, if necessary.

That basically this all indicates to this very united strategy that we are seeing occurring in Syria.

Press TV: Really in some ways both Qatar and the UK; if there are not other countries; are responsible for the civilians who have been killed.

While practically the whole world was saying; Assad has blood on his hands, because their involvement means, well Assad and his army are not going to sit back and have them themselves been killed, which they have by the way, 2000 deaths have been reported.

As a result civilians have been killed, so it is not Assad as the West is portraying it, that have blood on his hands in the words that the West has used.

Chandan: You know exactly, I agree with your alluding to brother.

I mean, when Michel was talking about that, you know, the British involvement that goes back to the very beginning of this, while we can go back even further, who divided that land in the first place?

It was the British and the French, under the now infamous Sykes-Picot agreement.

So really the British hand in the region goes back a long time ago, and it’s still a very pernicious and insidious hand that’s been played out today.

I mean it may seem a bit digression but I just want to go to Latin America and the issue of Las Malvinas or the Falklands.

And the reason I bring that up is two points; first of all, we can see from the Latin American example that, actually that the majority of the states of Latin America are united in support of Argentina with this dispute over the occupied Islands by the British of Las Malvinas.

Isn’t that a good example, a positive example to the deep divisions that actually are evident in the Arab world, which is allowing empire to create all kinds of havoc there!

And also I bring the Latin American context as well, because the president of Iran went on a four-day trip to Latin America to four different countries.

And what is happening really in the Middle East, is a profound fracturing of the strength, of the international strength of the global south.

And really, I think the people of the Middle East would do well to really look at the example of the Latin America, which is perhaps in many ways the advanced struggle of any region in the Global South, to see that its unity against empire what’s needed.

But what’s happening in the region with Syria, with Libya beforehand, and throughout the Persian Gulf, is a complete opposite situation; whereby, there is a lot of movements in support of key allies of Britain and America in the region, against those countries which the West have always wanted regime change.

So that’s Gaddafi’s Libya, that is Assad’s Syria and Hezbollah are to be coming next.

So, really the British have no right whatsoever to meddle in anyone’s affairs. Frankly, the British were massacring hundreds of people when they occupied Ireland.

So what would the British do if other foreign countries were organizing armed insurrection within the Britain itself?

I mean you just have to pose the question to know of the complete ridiculousness of how the West is intervening in Syria.

Absolutely Michel is right, if the West is interested...

Press TV: The United States and its Western allies do not want what Russia is trying to do, and Assad has agreed to, which is to lay down the arms, open up the dialogue with the opposition.

Chandan: Exactly, I think the brother from Beirut is putting the cart before the horse.

The problem is not the Syrian regime; the problem is the already standing foreign intervention, that’s been in place in Syria for many, many months now.

Now, it’s very clear the United Nations Security Council, there was no real interest in resolving the conflict, the growing civil war in Syria.

Because if there was, the Arab League report would have been included in the discussions, it wasn’t!

And now we can see that the only real big power in the world that’s real interests can make a difference on the ground is China, and particularly Russia.

Where, the foreign minister Lavrov has gone to Syria and actually is trying to put into place the recommendations of the Arab League report, in conjunction with the Syrian government.

The Syrian government has responded positively, so it seems that there is a path to deescalating the very traumatic and we can’t underestimate how traumatic and how bloody and how awful a civil war is when it befalls a nation.

So really, if people are really interested in resolving the conflict in Syria, then the Arab League report, the involvement of the Russian government and the Syrian government, is positive move towards that end.

But really we know that is not the agenda here. The agenda is regime change, to knock out Syria for an attack on Hezbollah and on Iran, and to absolutely neuter the Palestinian struggle. 

No comments: