One thing I have learnt from reading news in which states declare the crust of their foreign policy is that such news themselves should be taken with a pinch of salt as they are seldom what they seem.
I have also come to learn that world leaders, while working underground to further the interests of their “people” and corporations, are content with making newsworthy quotes which serve as smoke screens for whatever their agenda – real and hidden agenda, I meant to say – is.
It is on this premise I would like to implore the Syrian people to tread on the part of caution regarding the vocalized pledge of the Barack Obama led America government to rid it of the great threat posed by the Islamic State (ISIS).
There has been much noise about how the Arab Spring has helped Arabs fight and wrestle power from the hands of “despots” unto the hands of the liberals who, unlike the authoritarians they have successfully deposed, would ensure a peaceful, fair and prosperous society.
It is, however, noteworthy that the countries trod by the rugged boots of The Spring are neither stable in reality nor on the pages of the newspapers – this is despite the frantic efforts of the West-controlled imperialist media to prop up the ragged image of those nations, now turn American stooge.
Apart from the afore-stated, the other lesson of the Tunisian, Egyptian and Libyan springs seems to be the current pro-West World Order the slogan of which goes thus: “America first; and the other nations, in no particular order, next.
I would love to draw the attention of Syrians to the Boko Haram insurgency plaguing West African giant, Nigeria and the way President Goodluck and the Obama administration have been trading media slurs and inconsistent statements about the health of their bilateral relationship.
Although the Obama-led American government pledged to help the African country overcome the insurgency, high ranking administrative and military officials within the Nigerian government have said the US only support Nigeria’s war on terror on the pages of the newspapers.
They even went as far as blaming the whole national security threat on the Americans whom they claim are the real masterminds of the insurgency.
The Americans on their part have labelled the Nigerian military “unprofessional” and questioned their claims that they killed Boko Harma leader Abubakar Shekua, who is believed to have been killed sometime around June 2013. Whereas the Nigerians said the current “Shekua” is one Bashir Muhammed, now apparently slain, who took up the identity of his predecessor to shame the Nigerian military; the American government said the original terror leader “is alive and well.”
There are voices within the Nigerian society claiming the Americans were unhappy with the points the Nigerians are scoring against insurgency in recent time. They say the eventual defeat of Boko Haram would be bad news for America who seek to destabilize Nigeria so the West could make suck West Africa’s oil undeterred.
They claim that was the script played out in the now war-ravaged and divided Sudan.
It was on this premise that controversial Irish politician Clare Daly called Obama a “war criminal,” who while preaching peace around the world, has been arming rival groups within peaceful nations with the effect being the destabilization of such nations. Although I do not share such seemingly extreme opinions, I think a call for the scrutiny of such possibility would not be out of place – and Syrians must listen.
Syrians must listen to Daly who has accused her own the government of “prostituting” Ireland to the U. S.
A woman who Obama a hypocrite and a war criminal for speaking about peace whilst using drones to bomb foreign civilians and wanting to supply weapons to Syrian rebels, some of which are affiliated with Islamist organisations, including Al-Qaeda and the new group on the block ISIS; should not be ignored.
Bypassing a legitimate government to arm moderate groups who rarely see eye to eye to eliminate an indirect threat should be condemned by the international community.
If the US succeeds in “destroying” ISIS via the unholy strategy of arming and training “civilian” Syria which is divided along sectarian lines; the question remains what would become of those weapons in the hands of military trained interests.
The answer is certainly not far-fetched. The uprising against Assad would rise from near dead and culminate in the disintegration of Syria. That should be good news for America which would then have one less “anti-West” state to worry about in her quest to “democratize” the Middle East.
Has it never occurred to anyone how we all resent the possible “Islamisation” of our countries but do not blink at the incursion Western imperial democracy has made into our national life? Well, democracy is good and every other thing is evil. I am a living witness! No sarcasm here, please.
On the part of Assad, the last thing he would want is weapons in the hands of rivals groups who are bent on ripping the country apart. He must, therefore, use every diplomatic maneuver within his power to resist America’s bid to arm those groups as long as such move would not go through the Syrian state which the West, at the unset of the Syrian crisis, said they would not recognize.
The fate of Syria would then rest on the shoulders of Syrians who must line up, united, behind Assad or divided, as they seem to have been since the onset of the crisis, behind Obama.
I would not be surprised if a situation favouring the latter culminates in a fragmented Syria; or, as Afghanistan and Iraq has proven, in an unsafe country so weakened it would not stand in the way of America’s incursion into the Middle East.
The fate of Syria lies in the hands of Syrians. That is the end of my “conspiracy theory.”