WESTERN HYPOCRISY is on display for all to see over Syria. The US filed motions to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to authorise the use of military force to intervene in Syria, this comes after the US and other western powers accused Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad to be the perpetrator of the alleged chemical attack in Douma. The British Prime Minister, Theresa May, has stated the governments support of the US.

Russia have said that if the US were to launch an attack on Syria, this would cause a significant rise in tensions between the nations and that they would shoot down incoming missiles.

The right kind of Arab…

Without focusing on Syria for the moment, the west is being astoundingly hypocritical over the potential decision to use military force in Syria. The narrative is that Assad is using these weapons against his own people, who are Arabs, and the UK government are toeing the line that this isn’t right to kill the innocent Arab population along with the rebels. Of course, the government are correct in saying or even insinuating this but if the UK truly wants to be described as ‘liberal’ then it shouldn’t stop with Syria.

The point is, the government are happy to allow Israel to shoot peaceful protesters, systemically remove the Palestinian population and torture, harass and imprison Arab children. They are also happy to sell weapons to Saudi Arabia, who then use them on the Yemeni population and this kills mostly innocent civilians just trying to make it day by day.

When it comes to Israel, the UK government are happy to support them in their genocide of the Palestinian people, by making it difficult to stand up for them in the UK itself by passing laws that discriminate against pro-Palestinian activism and define anti-Semitism as criticising the Israeli government.

Western intervention

Back to Syria, it was the west that supported the initial uprising in the first place with the US and the UK playing key roles in the formation of the Free Syrian Army, who subsequently played an important role in the formation of ISIL. The whole intervention by the UK and US exacerbated the war in the first place and now they are claiming that Assad is the one who is solely responsible.

Of course, he is in no way a good person and has no doubt committed atrocities, much like his father. But when there is no definitive independence evidence, just claims from the rebels thus far, the west cannot contemplate the use of military force as of yet and even if there is the evidence, the use of military should still be once every other avenue is exhausted.

Back to the chemical attacks, thus far there isn’t any evidence and there are even suggestions that it was faked but the OPCW is heading in there to verify whether or not this was a chemical attack or not. There is however, a history of not being able to gather sufficient evidence. The chemical attacks in Ghouta in 2013 and Khan Sheikhoun in 2017 have never been directly linked to Assad, the evidence that did come back pointed the finger but there was never a ‘smoking gun’ to link him directly to the attacks but there is evidence that links Britain to the export and creation of chemical weapons.

Furthermore, media outlets and investigative journalists around the world and in the region are finding no evidence of a chemical attack, it is only the NATO allies that have magically found the definitive evidence needed for military use.

In 2013 it was revealed that a British company was granted export licences for the dual-use substances for six months in 2012 while Syria’s civil war was raging. The licences were revoked due to EU sanctions, at the time the then PM David Cameron stated that the “system worked” because the chemicals were never sold but the government approved the licence whilst it was the EU that removed it, consequently proving the British system doesn’t’ work. Furthermore, A leaked Foreign Office document says they were supplied in the mid-1980s.

Foreign Secretary William Hague said UK firms provided the materials and that Syria has admitted they played a role in its chemical weapons programme. On Wednesday, a group of international law experts joined forces to issue a statement over the possibility of military action by the US and allies:

“We are practitioners and professors of international law. Under international law, military strikes by the United States of America and its allies against the Syrian Arab Republic, unless conducted in self-defense or with United Nations Security Council approval, are illegal and constitute acts of aggression” (Consortium News)