On a glowing crimson evening, sitting by the lake at my University, I had the pleasure of meeting my first Syrian friend, Ghandy. The encounter kick-started my inquisitiveness into the current upheaval of the moral, social and political stance of his home country. And this was to follow.
Throughout all of Western media over the last two weeks, Syria has been high up on the agenda. A long time in the building, Western governments have looked for backing from the leaders of the world to topple yet another ruling party. With civil war encroaching upon the entire country and ‘fear’ of it spilling over into ‘stable’ countries allied with the West, a political battle was started. Action must be taken by The West; the self designated and governing world police, fighting for democracy.
“If crime fighters fight crime and fire fighters fight fire, what do freedom fighters fight?
George Carlin.
And so the supply of arms was given the go ahead in June 2013 by the Pallid House in the far West to directly fuel conflict and instigate political change. At least this card was laid down on the table so that the world could see; unlike previous skirmishes (see the documentary film: Zeitgeist Addendum). But still, major world players of the ‘game’ were adamant to veto taking military action at Security Council meetings. One Western country side-stepped; pledging allegiance to their allies but failing to deliver the hoped-for support. Instead, an extra £52 million would be spent on aid; a generous amount given the current economic climate. This decision was quick to be released into the media following the unsuccessful plea to give military support; almost sounding like an economic backup strategy. Is this a country taking the moral high ground, or is there a hidden agenda; be it gaining public support or war profiteering? The former can only be a fantasy.
The Syrian government portrayed by The Western media appears no better, and has now been given the red card by the West. A step which crossed the line as the use of chemical weapons against humanity is seen as monstrous. But let us take a step back and think about the larger picture. The Syrian government has shown that a rebel force supplied by small arms cannot topple the government. Western countries in turn become frustrated with the lack of development and choose to invest a heavier amount of resources into the uprising. The Western countries must see this as an economic gain of resources; but so far progress has been hindered by the objections from prominent World Leaders. To persuade the Security Council for further intervention, a justified reason would be needed; the use of chemical weapons. We have seen from previous conflicts that declarations presented by World Leaders on Weapons of Mass Destruction have exposed false claims. This time round solid evidence would be needed to convince the Council that intervention is required.
It is not to dispute whether chemical weapons have been used, but more so to question why and who by; an almost impossible task. But if you can take into consideration the multitude of facts from previous conflicts, the economic gains and realise that Syria has been in The West’s sights for at least six years, then things become clearer.
“The Saudi government, with Washington’s approval, would provide funds and logistical aid to weaken the government of President Bashir Assad, of Syria.”
SEYMOUR M. HERSH, March 5th 2007.
At a time when the Syrian government is faring well against the insurgents, why would the government deploy chemical weapons against its own people, knowing that there would be repercussions taken against the country? The Syrian regime currently has the resources to fight off a low level insurgency; if the government was struggling for power, there could be cause for desperate measures. But this is certainly not the case. Western countries are pushing for greater intervention indicating that the level of resistance by the regime is high. Why is it that only Western countries (and their allies in the region) are pushing for greater intervention?
Once the band wagon sees a potential for resource exploitation, the capitalist drill gets going and there is very little to stop it until reaching the black gold. Syria, rated 34thin world oil production, has a proven reserve of 2.183 billion barrels. The Syrian industry produces and refines petroleum to the quantities needed for consumption, and only exports a shear fraction (5.7%) of petroleum products (CIA, 2009-2012). There is the potential for development in exploration, production and refinement; a lucrative industry prized by The West. With unexploited resources, low exports and a dictatorship, this would provide the means for Western governments to warrant action. Western allies have just discovered a new reserve of oil (128 million barrels) in the region; some 200km from the border with Syria, which lead to a 16.9% share increase in the drilling company, Shemen Oil (Globes, 2013).
War can provide vast economic gains in terms of resource access and availability, but only once turmoil is generated within a country. Many barriers must be crossed; firstly convincing the rest of the world that action needs to be taken. Once the ruling party has been conquered, power and influence over the region is redistributed. Contracts for resource access can be sold to recoup initial costs; even when the risks are high. To have it all, you must risk everything; even if that means throwing your ethics out the window.
Is The West really fighting ‘for’ democracy or is this just a visage for a well established agenda?
Ahmen, Nafezz, August 30th 2013. Syria intervention plan fuelled by oil interests, not chemical weapon concern, The Guardian.
Date accessed: 09/09/2013
CIA, 2013. Syria, The World Facebook.
Date accessed: 09/09/2013
Globes, 2013.
Date accessed: 08/09/2013
Hersh, Seymour, March 5th 2007. Annals of National Security, The New Yorker.
Date accessed: 09/09/2013
