Failing the people of Syria during Seven Years of Devastation and Dispossession

13 Nov

 

Failing the people of Syria during Seven Years of Devastation and Dispossession

 

[Prefatory Note: What follows is a wide-ranging interview in November 2017 that that concentrates on the failure of the UN and the world to rescue the people of Syria by a timely and effective humanitarian intervention. The interview was conducted by a Turkish journalist, Salva Amor, and is to be published in a magazine, Causcasus International. The text of the interview has been slightly modified.]

 

A missed chance 

 

  1. You previously referred to Syria as “an ideal case for humanitarian intervention” however, rather than becoming a prime example of positive humanitarian intervention it has turned into one of the greatest humanitarian crises with half of the country becoming refugees or internally displaced. 

 

What turned such an Ideal case for humanitarian intervention into one of the worst humanitarian responses we have seen in recent times?

 

Answer: I do not recall this reference to Syria as ‘an ideal case,’ but I must have meant it in a hypothetical sense, that is, as if ‘humanitarian intervention’ was ever called for, it was in Syria, especially at the early stages of the conflict. And yet I am inclined to think that regime-changing intervention was at all stages a mission impossible. We should keep in mind that the record of actual successful instances of what is labeled as ‘humanitarian intervention’ has been dismal, and when successful the motivation was not predominantly humanitarian, but rather a confluence of strategic interests of one sort or another with a humanitarian challenge. In Syria the strategic interests were not sufficiently strong to justify the likely costs, especially in the wake of Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

Sometimes, the intervention is a cover for non-humanitarian goals, as in Afghanistan (2002), Iraq (2003), and Libya (2011) and may be effective in attaining its immediate goals of regime change but is extremely costly from the perspective of humanitarianism if assessed from the perspective of prolonged violence, societal chaos, and human suffering.

And only marginally successful strategically given the resilience of territorial resistance and the pressure for long-term occupation if the original gains of intervention are to be preserved.

 

At other times, the humanitarian rationale is present, as in Syria, but there is no strategic justification of sufficient weight, and what is done by external actors or the UN is insufficient to control the outcome, and often ends up intensifying the scale of suffering endured by the population. In effect, humanitarian intervention rarely achieves a net benefit from the perspective of the population that is being supposedly rescued. Perhaps, Kosovo (1999) is the best recent case where an alleged humanitarian intervention enjoyed enough strategic value to be effective, and yet seems to have left the Kosovar population better off afterwards, although even Kosovo is not a clear case.  

 

 

Failures & implications of inaction

 

  1. The humanitarian failures in Syria and for Syrian refugees in neighboring countries including Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon and Iraq have had far-reaching implications for the EU with millions of refugees choosing to risk their lives in order to enter Europe causing the largest exodus since WWII. 

 

Could the surge of refugees fleeing to Europe have been avoided had a more positive and organized humanitarian intervention taken place?

 

Answer: It is possible that had Syria possessed large oil reserves, the intervention against the Damascus regime would have been robust enough to topple the regime, and create stability before combat conditions prompted massive internal population displacements and gigantic refugee flows, including the European influx. In this sense, Libya with oil, did prompt such an intervention, although it was an easier undertaking, as the Qaddafi regime had much less popular support than did the Assad regime, and was less well equipped militarily and lacked regional allies. In Syria, because of regional and global geopolitical cleavages, the politics of intervention and counter-intervention was far more complicated, and inhibited potential anti-regime interveners from making large commitments. At the early stages of the conflict Turkey and the United States miscalculated the costs and scale of a successful intervention in Syria, supposing that an indirect and low level effort could be effective in achieving regime change, which misunderstood the conditions prevailing in Syria.  

 

 

The best response

 

  1. In your experience, what would have been the ideal humanitarian response to the war in Syria? And who would have been best to implement it? 

 

Answer: As my earlier responses hinted, there is no ideal response, and the current world order system is not reliably capable of handling humanitarian intervention in a situation such as existed in Syria. To have any chance of effectiveness would require entrusting the undertaking to one or more powerful states, but even then the situation that would follow, is highly uncertain. In a post-colonial setting, there is bound to be strong nationalist and territorial resistance to outside intervention and occupation, generally producing serious prolonged chaos. If the country is very small and can be overwhelmed (Granada, Panama) without counter-intervention the undertaking will sometimes work. Iraq serves as a clear example of an intervention that did rid the country of a brutal tyrant, but produced internal violence among competing regions, tribes, and generated extreme sectarian strife between Sunnis and Shiites, as well as a series of ethnic, tribal, and regional battles.

 

In a better governed world, which is far from existing, the UN would have acted robustly and with the support of the regional governments in the Middle East, the geopolitical actors (U.S. and Russia) would have not pursued their strategic agendas, and a politically neutral intervention would have created the conditions for a post-Assad democratic political transition, including imposing accountability for past crimes. Merely mentioning this desirable scenario is enough to reveal its utopian character. Especially in the Middle East, geopolitics of a regional and global scope badly distort all efforts to fashion a humanitarian response to repression and severe violations of human rights. In the background, but not far in the background, is the relevance of oil. The countries that have experienced massive interventions (Iraq, Libya) possessed abundant oil reserves, while those that have little or no oil have either been ignored or endured prolonged bloody conflict, of which Syria is the worst case, having become the scene of competing and offsetting interventions motivated by political and strategic ambitions with only a thin propaganda rationale associated with alleviating a humanitarian crisis, which at best, was a much subordinated goal of the interveners on both sides.

 

 

Lessons for Future

 

4a. How can the world learn from the humanitarian failures and inaction that occurred in Syria for the past 7 years? What opportunities to protect, defend or support the Syrian people have we missed?

 

Answer: In my view, it is a mistake to speak of ‘inaction’ in the Syrian context. There have been massive interventions of all sorts on both sides of the conflict by a variety of actors, but none decisive enough to end the conflict, and none primarily motivated by humanitarian concerns. Of course, here and there, lives could have been saved, especially if the balance of forces within Syria had been better understood at an early stage of the conflict in the West. What intervention achieved in Syria was largely a matter of magnifying the conflict, and attendant suffering. The conflict itself was surrounded by contradictory propaganda claims making the reality difficult to perceive by the public, and therefore there was political resistance to more explicit and possibly more effective regime changing intervention. 

 

Indifference:

 

4b. Is there any correlation between the rise of Islamophobia and the world’s inaction towards Syrian people’s suffering? Has the ongoing drumming of hatred towards the Islamic religion created a generation of indifference towards those of them who are suffering? Or is such wide indifference a natural response to such overwhelming humanitarian crisis?

 

Answer: The indifference in relation to Syria is mainly a matter of public confusion and distrust. Confusion about the nature of the conflict and distrust as to the motives of political actors that have intervened on either side. The spike in Islamophobia is attributable to the interplay of the European refugee crisis and the occurrence of terrorist incidents that are perpetrated by ISIS and its supporters. Of course, the massive refugee flow was prompted by the violence in the Syrian combat zones, which has made Europe most interested in resolving the conflict even if meant allowing a criminal regime to remain in power.

 

I suppose that the indifference noted in your question is more evident in relation to the plight of the Rohingya people in Myanmar that in response to Syria where, as I have been suggesting, the political context dominates the human suffering, and the Islamic identity of the victimized people is secondary. Also, it is worth recalling the global indifference to genocide in Rwanda (1994) that could have prevented,

or at least minimized, by a timely, and relatively small scale intervention. And on occasion, if the strategic context is supportive, the West will intervene on the Islamic side as in Bosnia and Kosovo in the 1990s, and there in opposition to the Christian side.  

 

 

  1. The UN has handed over a large portion of the $4bn of its aid effort in Syria to the Syrian regime or partners who have been approved by Bashar Al Assad. How does the UN justify providing tens of millions of dollars in humanitarian aid to one of the worst governments, that has besieged, starved, bombed and killed hundreds of thousands of its own people? 

 

Answer: I suppose the basic justification for this behavior is that from the viewpoint of the UN the Damascus regime remains the legitimate government of Syria representing the country at the UN. This is of course a legalistic justification, and evades the real humanitarian crisis as well as the crimes of Assad’s regime. So far, because there is a geopolitical standoff, regionally (Iran v. Saudi Arabia) and globally (Russia v. the U.S. and Turkey), the UN has tried to remain aloof from the ambit of political controversy to the extent possible while doing what it can to alleviate human suffering. I am not knowledgeable about whether the UN aid is reaching the civilian population as claimed. The language of your question suggests that there should be some mechanism for disqualifying a government that commits repeated crimes against its own people from being treated by the UN as a normal member state, but this is not likely to happen anytime soon, and it is tricky as the UN System is built around state-centric ideas of world order.

 

 

The right to torture

 

  1. The world was shocked in 2015 when the Caesar files were releasedrevealing human stories behind 28,000 deaths in Syrian prisons, most, if not all were tortured prior to their death.Two years later no action has been taken in regards to detainees and torture in prisons. There has been no action or desire to send observers to Syrian Prisons nor to investigate those who were named in the Caesar files for war crimes.What must a dictator have to do for the international community to respond to his crimes? Comparing Libyan intervention with Syria

 

Answer: I took part recently in a ceremony in Nuremberg Germany that awarded a human rights prize to the photographer, whose identity is kept secret for his safety, responsible for the Caesar Report containing photographic images of Syrian prison torture of some 11,000 prisoners, most of whom are reportedly now dead. There is no question that these images are horrifying, but serious issues have been raised as to the authenticity of this photographic archive. It has been authenticated as genuine by Human Rights Watch, but has also been used by persons closely connected with the U.S. Government to build a case for war crimes prosecutions, particularly against Bashar al Assad. I am not in a position to assess the controversy, yet do not doubt that the Damascus regime has committed many atrocities and are responsible for the great majority of civilian deaths over the course of the last six years in Syria. At the same time the anti-regime forces, which are fragmented, have also committed many war crimes.

 

These issues of criminal accountability cannot be reliably answered from a distance, or merely on the basis of media reports. What is required is a credible international fact finding commission of inquiry with adequate access to whatever evidence and witnesses remain available.

 

 

 

  1. Human rights groups have estimated that no less than half a million people have died in the last 7 years in Syria. Although there are many violent factions in Syria, more than 94% of all deaths have been caused by Syrian Government or Russian strikes. In comparison Libya’s Muammer Gaddafi had killed an 257 people including combatants and injured 949 with less than 3% being women and children when UN security council intervened. On March 17, 2011, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 1973 (2011) authorizing “regional organizations or arrangements…to take all necessary measures…to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack” in Libya. The resolution was adopted with ten votes for, none against, and five abstentions. In hindsight, many have now questioned whether that intervention was purely to “protect civilians”. Is the UN Security Council still a reliable body that can be relied upon to protect the civilian? The UN’s Responsibility Not – To Protect the Civilian Population

 

Answer: The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) UN norm is interpreted and practice is governed by the UN Security Council, and hence is completely subordinated to the manipulations of geopolitics. In this regard, the lesser humanitarian hazard in Libya led to a UN regime-changing mission because the Permanent Members opposed to intervention (China, Russia) were persuaded not to cast their veto for what was being proposed, which was a limited humanitarian mission to protect the then entrapped civilian population of Benghazi. In fact, the NATO undertaking expanded the mission far beyond the Security Council mandate from its inception, angering Russia and China that had abstained out of deference to pleas relating to the humanitarian claims put forward by the NATO members of the Security Council. They later justified their opposition to a more pro-active UN role in Syria by reference to this failure of trust, the unwillingness of the intervening states to respect the limits of the mandate.

 

What is important to appreciate is that R2P and other UN undertakings must adhere to the constraints of geopolitics. As disturbing as inaction with respect to Syria, is the UN silence with regard to the abuse of the civilian populations of Gaza and Rakhine (Myanmar). It is only when a geopolitical consensus exists, which is quite rare (e.g. failure with respect to Yemen) that it is possible for the UN to play an important humanitarian role in shaping behavior and protecting civilians.

 

 

  1. Why was The UN’s responsibility to protect (R2P ) invisible in the last 7 years in Syria? What must be done now, in order to implement an R2P operation in Syria to avoid further suffering? In past years vetoes have blocked humanitarian intervention.

 

Answer: Part of my response here has already been given in relation to the prior question. I would only add here that the abolition of the veto would be a crucial step, or even an agreement among permanent members of the Security Council to refrain from casting a veto in humanitarian contexts such as Syria. The problem is that the veto powers are extremely unlikely to give up their right of veto, partly because such states do not voluntarily give up power and partly because humanitarian issues are almost always inseparable from diverse and often antagonist geopolitical interests, and therefore the claims are not perceived as humanitarian. This is certainly the case with regard to Syria. The take away conclusion is that the international system as it now functions is rarely motivated by humanitarian considerations when they come into conflict with the strong political preferences and strategic priorities of principal states, and this is true even when the humanitarian crisis is as severe and prolonged as in Syria.

 The most constructive response, in view of these realities, is to advocate global reform, but this will not happen without a major mobilization of people throughout the world or as a frantic response to some earth-shaking catastrophe.

 

 

  1. I understand that there was a veto by Russia and thus a solution was not passed, however, in such cases, when one of the countries that is involved in the atrocities is allowed to veto, does it not raise the alarm?Surely, this situation in Syria and the human cost provides enough of a precedent for (if not the UN, those who care about preventing further atrocities) a new chapter to be drafted and implemented into the UN. –Do you believe that it is time for the UN to adopt a new chapter into itsCharter that would prevent dictators or countries with vested interest in a war from overpowering UN Security Council votes? Normalizing atrocities at the global level.

 

Answer: Yes, there was much criticism of Russia for blocking action on Syria, but Russia was acting in accord with the constitutional structure of the UN. The U.S. uses its veto in a comparable way to protect Israel and other allies, and equally irresponsibly, from a moral or humanitarian point of view. It should be remembered that the League of Nations fell apart because major states would not participate, including the United States. The idea of the veto was designed to persuade all major states to participate, with the goal of universality of membership, but at the cost of engendering paralysis and irresponsible obstructions to action whenever veto powers disagree sharply. Your questions raise the crucial issue if this was too high a price to pay for the sake of maintaining universality of participation. One consequence of this tradeoff between geopolitics and effectiveness is to weaken public respect for the UN as an agency for the promotion of justice and decency in global affairs.

 

As specified in Article 108 of the UN Charter requires the approval of 2/3rds of the entire membership of the UN as well as all five Permanent Members of the Security Council, which means that it will not happen in the foreseeable future in relation to any politically sensitive issue. When World War II ended there was the hope and illusion that countries that cooperated against fascism would continue to cooperate to maintain the peace. As should have been anticipated, it was a forlorn hope.

 

 

  1. The White House accepts Assad’s continued rule in Syria as a “political reality” while European leaders have also taken a soft approach with French president declaring he no longer saw the removal of Assad as necessary. In your view, how do such civilized countries justify good relations with Assad? ISIS the monster that invites intervention: ISIS Affects the West, Assad does not.

 

Answer: Your comment on ISIS is a way of expressing my view that these issues are dominated by geopolitical calculations. ISIS as horrible as it is has not been nearly as responsible for the quality and quantity of suffering inflicted upon the Syrian people by the Damascus regime.

 

At this point, and given the unavailability of humanitarian intervention, the best Plan B for Syria is to seek a sustainable ceasefire, and this would undoubtedly require making some unpalatable compromises, including the possible retention of Assad as head of state. After all, there are many heads of state with much blood on their hands, and yet their legitimacy as rulers is essentially unchallenged. The way the world is organized makes it unable to impose criminal responsibility on the leaders of sovereign states except in special circumstances of total victory as in World War II, or more recently, in relation to the criminal prosecutions of Saddam Hussein and Milosevic, particular enemies of the West.

 

 

  1. Many Syrian groups have released statements to express their dismay at the international community for only intervening to strike ISIS. The Global Coalition’s planes hover over Deir Al Zour and Raqa to target ISIS (often causing civilian casualties) while in the same sky Assad Planes carrying deadly Barrel Bombs hover over nearby towns unperturbed. A) Is there balance in the international community’s actions in Syria? While Assad only kills or affects the lives of Syrians in Syria, ISIS became a threat to western countries. Terrorist attacks in the west killed and injured civilians in the west.
  2. B) Is there an underlying message that the West will “Fight against ISIS in Syria, because it affects people in our countries, but leave Assad because he has no impact on their own people?”

 

Answer: Yes, this is certainly a perceptive observation. When the issue is fairly large scale and internal, and where Muslims are the victims, any effort to intervene is bound to be feeble, at best, which it was in the early stages of 2011-2013 when Turkey and the U.S. cooperated in supporting Friends of Syria, which was mistakenly thought capable of shifting the balance sufficiently in Syria to produce the collapse of the Damascus regime. When that failed, it became obvious that the costs of an effective intervention were viewed in the West as too high and dangerous. Considering the Iranian and Russian alignments with the Syrian government doomed an anti-Damascus intervention.

 

And as you suggest, the West views ISIS as dangerous enemy, and is prepared to take bigger risks and bear higher costs because Western homeland security is at stake. ISIS is a proclaimed enemy of the West that is perceived as responsible for violent acts, Syria is not, being regarded, at most, as an unattractive regime, partly because in the past, hostile toward Israel. Taking account of these circumstances, the political realist seeks a ceasefire in Syria while going all out to achieve the destruction of ISIS.

 

 

  1. Please kindly note any comments, suggestions, opinions, thoughts you have on the Syrian conflict and in particular on the west’s reaction to it and the UN’s role. Also, on what you feel can and should be done from now on. Thanks so much.

 

Answer: From my earlier responses I am skeptical about what can be done beyond the obvious: give up any hope of securing support for an R2P mandate to protect the Syrian people, and pursue a ceasefire so as to end the suffering. This is not justice, but it may at least spare the Syrian people further trauma and bloodshed.

 

What the Syrian tragedy and ordeal reveals vividly is the inability of the international community, as now organized, to deal with a humanitarian crisis unless a geopolitical consensus is present in a relatively strong form, regionally and globally. Such a consensus is not even enough if the difficulties of intervention are seen as producing heavy casualties for the intervening side and would impose burdens of a prolonged occupation to achieve post-intervention political order and security.

 

Europe would benefit at this time from a Syrian ceasefire and the restoration of political normalcy. It would undoubtedly reduce the pressure on European countries created by the Syrian refugee flow, which has given right wing political parties their greatest strength and largest level of popular support since the end of World War II.

Advertisements

14 Responses to “Failing the people of Syria during Seven Years of Devastation and Dispossession”

  1. Gene Schulman November 14, 2017 at 12:10 am #

    Good day Richard. There are many statements in this interview from, both, your interlocutor and yourself that could invite controversy. Let me, however, just point out one error you both make: R2P is the ‘responsibility’ to protect, not the ‘right’ to protect.

    Best regards,

    Gene

    • Richard Falk November 14, 2017 at 1:53 am #

      Gene:

      One more senior moment! Thanks for catching this silly mistake. I was rushed in doing the interview
      the night before I left for Vietnam. Here is Hanoi, while my wife works hard on behalf of the UN, I
      take the opportunity renew my love affair with the people of Vietnam. Warm greetings, Richard

      P.S. I have never been able to have a clear sense of how best to interpret the various stages of the
      Syrian tragedy and ordeal.

      • Gene Schulman November 14, 2017 at 6:41 am #

        Ah, those senior moments. How well I know them. But I’ve never had such moments about the Syrian tragedy. However much damage is the fault of which side, my clear sense is to blame it on Obama (and Israel, of course.)

        I envy you the Vietnamese cuisine!

    • Expose USG agnets November 16, 2017 at 9:43 am #

      How many times should I tell you that he is a promoter of “world government”, and “New Middle East”, a criminal zionist/imperialist project. He censors comments to protect his true identity. He is advisor to the criminal Erdugan Regime, a Zionist stooge.

      How many people should tell this USG propagandist that ‘you are wrong’. How many documents they should present? He will not change, so you as a naive person. It is shame

      He knows what he is doing, to fool the ‘progressives’ to bring them on board, what Noam Chomsky, Juan Cole and Amy Goodman at the “democracy now” are doing. These people have been exposed all over the world. Only dummies still flirt with the imposters.

      • Richard Falk November 16, 2017 at 8:34 pm #

        This is a ridiculous list of false, hyped allegations that indicates a failure
        to distinguish between people of integrity and good will and those who are truly
        imposters. Such shrill comments are not helpful.

  2. Rael Nidess November 14, 2017 at 3:10 pm #

    I’ve greatly admired your positions on many issues in the past but your seeming acceptance of the entire neoliberal/NeoCon propaganda construct of the Syrian conflict and the memes created to sell it to the world make me concerned your ‘senior moments’ may be more profound than you realize. Your acceptance of so many well-documented lies & exaggerations regarding the Syrian regime-change war including: ‘R2P’, barrel bombs, Caesar Files, ‘humanitarian intervention’ [as if!!] and your failure to call out the U.S., NATO, GCC funded, supplied, and instigated regime-change war fronted by jihadi mercenary terrorists reduces your credibility on this issue to a subterranean level. Among issues that could have been raised but weren’t was your interlocutor’s country; Turkey’s culpability for the chaos engulfing Syria which allowed its porous border with Syria to be used as a conduit for jihadis & war materials, entering Syria & as a haven for the same jihadis – and their faux ‘sarin gas victims (many admitted to hospitals before the last ‘attack’ even occurred) while buying oil stolen by ISIS from Syria & Iraq and selling it to Israel (thankfully demonstrated by Russia) are many others far too numerous to discuss here.

    ‘Failing the People of Syria…’ is an important discussion; however this interview only perpetuates, entrenches, and accentuates that failure. Just ask the 80% of Syrians who’ve chosen to live under their legally-elected President and the protection of the Syrian Arab Army rather than those few who, having failed to gain their ends democratically, chose to unleash chaos instead.

    • Richard Falk November 14, 2017 at 9:45 pm #

      I have come to realize that getting it right with respect to Syria is virtually impossible. There
      are deep, genuine feelings that are based on contradictory sources of facts and information. I did the
      best I could on the basis of what I think I know..I am not sure how you came to the conclusion that
      80% of the Syrian population supports the President and the government.

      • Marshalldoc November 17, 2017 at 12:46 pm #

        Because that’s the percentage of the Syrian population living under the protection of the Syrian government rather than in the various Salafist principalities. I posted a more extensive reply separately, below, before realizing I should have put it here.

    • Brewer November 14, 2017 at 11:58 pm #

      I agree with Rael.
      Having been made aware that the regime-change operations in Iraq and Libya were based on falsehoods I began taking an interest in the Syrian Government before the outbreak of violence. People I respect such as Franklin Lamb, Vanessa Beely and many more were publishing a counter-narrative in the alternative media, unable to get their message through in the mainstream.
      The propaganda took on precisely the same form as that surrounding what we now know were neo-con inspired efforts to degrade Iraq and Libya, indicating a strategy eerily in accord with the published policy documents known as “The Oded Yinon Plan” and “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm”. Most or all such as “Syrian Girl”, The White Helmets and the gas attacks we now know to be false.
      From where I sit, the Caesar Files are part of that. Rick Sterling has a good article on Counterpunch:
      https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/03/04/the-caesar-photo-fraud-that-undermined-syrian-negotiations/

      Bashar Assad is a popular leader. If the photographs of massive crowds showing support and the man himself amongst them with barely a guard in sight doesn’t convince then there was the YouGov Siraj poll on Syria commissioned by The Doha Debates, funded by the Qatar Foundation should:
      https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jan/17/syrians-support-assad-western-propaganda
      Remember that Qatar is no friend of Assad.

      In fact, his popularity increased dramatically during the War.

      One of the most telling facts concerns the two main sources of analysis used by the Western Press. The “Syrian Observatory for Human Rights” is neither based in Syria nor is it an observer of what actually goes on there. It is essentially one man – Abdul Rahman, aka Rami Abdulrahman, aka Osama Suleiman – a three-term convicted criminal in Syria, based out of a small house in Coventry, England, and his ‘team of four activists in Syria’. “Bellingcat” (the author of the “barrel bomb” nonsense) is unemployed house-husband Elliot Higgins who confesses that “Before the Arab spring I knew no more about weapons than the average Xbox owner. I had no knowledge beyond what I’d learned from Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rambo.”[1] Higgins does not speak or read Arabic.[4] – Wikipedia.
      How is it that the mainstream press reports everything these two say while ignoring serious journos on the ground in Syria?
      Good summary here:
      https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2017/04/lets-call-western-media-coverage-of-syria-for-what.html

      • Richard Falk November 15, 2017 at 12:09 am #

        If you are correct in these assessments it implies a gigantic conspiracy that encompasses
        several respected NGOs (MSF, HRW, AI)..Your analysis is based almost entirely on circumstantial
        evidence, good for raising suspicions about the official version, but not sufficient to resolve
        doubts.

      • Brewer November 15, 2017 at 1:48 pm #

        Dear Richard.
        Indeed it does imply a conspiracy. One identical to those that are now proven in the case of Iraq and Libya. When men of such stature as Seymour Hersh and Scott Ritter are prepared to apply that label, I have no qualms about standing with them:
        https://www.amazon.it/Iraq-Confidential-Intelligence-Conspiracy-Undermine/dp/156025887X
        My attitude to NGOs is a little more complex. I have seen evidence that they can be subject to capture and/or misled by the ideology of some members. My faith in HRW was shattered by Peter Bouckaert’s initial reporting on Libya when he (either mistakenly or deliberately) circulated demonstrably false information. In this presentation:
        https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/18/gaddafi-brutal-regime-exposed-lost-archive?INTCMP=SRCH
        …he displays a doctored video (some of the crowd scenes from a basketball match are inserted into a Revolutionary Council show trial of an alleged assassin) as evidence of Qaddafi’s brutality. In fact, Qaddafi had little to do with the Revolutionary Councils which were independent and which Qaddafi swiftly reined in. In fact, Qaddafi’s coup was bloodless and its aftermath relatively bloodless if compared with Iraq, Palestine and Qaddafi’s overthrow.
        I suspect Bouckaert may have regretted his mistake as evidence that Qaddafi’s overthrow, far from being a popular revolution, was sponsored by the usual suspects began to mount. His later reporting was more balanced. Nevertheless, his actions helped direct public opinion towards supporting what I believe to be a heinous crime.
        Lizzy Phelan was in Libya at the same time as Bouckaert. Her account differed somewhat:

        HRW once displayed photos of Gaza as evidence of Assad’s “barrel bombs” and promoted the falsehood of Assad’s sarin gas attack on Ghouta. Possibly mistakes but nevertheless, reason for skepticism where their reports are concerned

        I am in what I consider good company in being sometimes skeptical about HRW and Amnesty (I have no problem with MSF). Norman Finklestein, Jonathon Cook and Alexander Cockburn have all expressed doubts. Amnesty International promoted the “Kuwaiti incubator babies” falsehood for example.
        Am I mistaken in my impression that both HRW and AI do not apply their scrutiny nearly so rigorously to the U.S. and Israel? I don’t think so.

        I think that the evidence of the Qatar poll and the duplicity of the Caesar photos themselves constitute something more than “circumstantial” – surely more substantial than that of Elliot Higgins and Abdul Rahman which have been the mainstay of the global press.

        Hope you can discern where I am coming from – it is difficult to cover such a broad topic in one short post. I agree it is “not sufficient to resolve doubts”. That is why I think it important to examine each case rather than take NGO’s or the mainstream press as gospel.
        Regards.

      • Richard Falk November 15, 2017 at 6:43 pm #

        Thanks for thoughtful and thought-provoking comment. I share your skepticism about the reliability
        of HRW in some of these instances. And yet, the evidence of the criminality of the Damascus regime
        seems overwhelming even if some of the most inflammatory incidents are fake news designed to create
        pressure for intervention.

  3. Marshalldoc November 16, 2017 at 7:45 am #

    Richard, I initially approached the issue of Syria from a position of real puzzlement although U.S. & western mendacity regarding the illegal invasion of Iraq and the regime change war on Libya, along with the disastrous consequences that followed certainly skewed my willingness to accept, at face value, western explanations and ‘justifications’ for anything they did in Syria (and their universal condemnation of Bashar al-Assad). But after 3 years of extensive reading my conclusions are what they are. Were you to do the same (as you did first-hand in Palestine) you’d likely come to the same conclusions. But, your reliance on the ‘trusted sources’ is misplaced and leads you into complicity with evil.

    Moreover, why the focus on Assad (whatever the truth of the accusations against him) when the far more viciously destructive criminals aren’t even mentioned? I refer of course to Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Obama, Kerry, Clinton, Rice, Powers, Blair, now Trump, Mattis, Tillerson, and their various coteries who, by their direct, illegal, and intentional actions violated international law (repeatedly), lied about it, and brought the current level of chaos that’s destroyed millennia-old cultures forever, and has caused the deaths of millions, untold hardships for many millions more, and the world closer to nuclear war than since the end of the USSR. Certainly, whatever crimes Assad my be guilty of pale into insignificance compared to theirs. Yet, they are feted as international statespeople and continue to dissemble and outright lie about their crimes.

    Does the term ‘misdirection’ apply?

  4. Beau Oolayforos November 20, 2017 at 11:12 am #

    Dear Professor Falk,

    Many of us remember well when Viet Nam was regularly referred to as a ‘quagmire’. Not for an instant forgetting the unspeakable suffering, it seems almost a simple case now. Ah, hindsight.

    It might be arguable that the CIA was making sense when, with the “Arab Spring”, it saw a chance to topple an historically bloody regime. But 7 years and thousands of innocent lives later, and with the increasing possibility of nuclear confrontation, re-assessment is long overdue.

    Of course, a ceasefire would be great but, as you intimate, any intervention, humanitarian or military, is fraught.

    My own dream wouldn’t be to invade Syria, but to drain her. Those huge refugee streams contain some of her best and brightest, as well as humble folk whose only wish is to be able to bed their children in peace and comfort, with full bellies and smiles on their faces. We should welcome all of them, and make the words engraved on the Statue of Liberty more than silly propaganda.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: