Phyllis writes:

“The first thing is to de-escalate the fighting – to staunch the horrific bloodletting that Syria’s civil war is creating for the Syrian people. That means stopping the arms shipments to all sides. That means negotiating directly with Russia, on a quid pro quo agreement to stop US and allied training and arms shipments to the rebels and re-establishing the EU ban on weapons to the rebels, in return for an end to Russian and allied arms shipments to the Syrian government.”

The plan ignores the fact that Syria is partly occupied by Israel (since 1967) and that it turned to the former Soviet Union and Russia for arms in the face of US-backed Israeli expansion and aggression. This continues to be the case today. Israel attacked Syria again only few weeks ago under the pretext of stopping arms supplies to the Hizbullah-led resistance movement in Lebanon. Cutting off supplies to Syria, without dealing with Israeli occupation, leaves it wide open to further Israeli aggression.

Calling for “an end to Russian and allied arms shipments to the Syrian government” also means ending supply of arms to the Palestinian and Lebanese resistance movements, since Syria is almost the only supplier of arms to these movements.

Hence, for Phyllis’s plan to be accurately described as quid pro quo it must also include the following:

- ending all US arms supplies to Israel and its allies in the region;

- ending US-led and Israeli interventionist policies in Syria and Lebanon and halting all arms supplies to allied and terrorist groups there;

- withdrawal of all the Israeli occupation forces from Syria, the return of the Golan Heights to full Syrian sovereignty and ending Israeli threats to Syria;

- since ending “Russian and allied arms shipment to the Syrian government” means effectively ending shipments to the Lebanese resistance movement then Israel must withdraw all Israeli occupation forces from the whole of Lebanese lands and end all Israeli incursions into the airspace and waters of Lebanon;

- since Phyllis’s plan also includes ending “allied” backing for Syria this means that Iran has to end its backing for Syria; for this to become part of a quid pro quo plan then the US and Israel have to end their preparations for a war of aggression on Iran and end US backing for sectarian armed groups in Iraq.

- and since ending of “Russian and allied arms shipment to the Syrian government” means effectively ending shipments to the Palestinians then the brutal Israeli occupation of Palestine has to be overturned first, the daily oppression of the Palestinian people brought to an end, and the right of over 4 millions Palestinians refugees to go back to their homeland practically implemented…

As you can see, Phyllis, your quid pro quo agreement is impossible to achieve because seriously imbalanced, and my suggested inclusion of the above points to redress the balance, though possessing most of the elements for a peaceful future in the region, would be equally impossible to achieve for the foreseeable future.

I think that an immediate end to the disastrous war in Syria can only come about if all parties to the conflict agree the following:

1. An immediate ceasefire. This is only possible if point 2 below is realised, because the armed opposition groups (as different from the democratic opposition groups) are linked to the US-led camp.

2. An immediate halt by the US, Britain, France, Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia of the supply of men, logistics and arms to all the armed opposition organisations in Syria, including the al-Qaida linked terrorist groups.

3. Practical preparations for free and fair elections so that the Syrian people decide their own future. The elections and its preceding period have to be seen to be free and fair. Some international guarantees, acceptable to the Syrian people, have to be in place. I think the democratic anti-imperialist opposition will benefit most for such an environment.

I have previously argued in the pages of Red Pepper (http://www.redpepper.org.uk/broken-spring/) and the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/03/military-intervention-syria-disastrous-people) that the Syrian people’s struggle for radical reform, democracy and social justice had long been highjacked by counter-revolution, through a process of militarisation similar to Libya’s. The militarisation process was the US and its allies’ response to the overthrow of the brutal US-backed dictators in Tunisia and Egypt. But the struggle of the peoples of the region for democratic rights, social justice, removing imperialist domination, genuine independence and ending Israeli occupation will continue unabated as long as the underlying reasons for such struggle remain in place.

Sami Ramadani
06 June 2013

But that’s not true, is it?

Look at the policy, not the rhetoric.

Behind Syria peace talks proposal, US prepares regional war
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/05/23/syri-m23.html

Kerry steps up US war threats against Syria, Iran
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/03/06/syri-m06.html

Washington escalates Syrian bloodbath
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/03/01/pers-m01.html

Turkey, Israel and Jordan are also helping the rebels. In Jordan, UK special forces and MI6 officers are also aiding the rebels.

Britain, France and the USA are desperate to find a plausible rationale for attacking Syria, a defining, ‘game-changing’ event, for example the Syrian government’s use of chemical weapons. But Turkish police have found evidence that the Al-Qaeda-linked rebel group al-Nusra, not the Syrian government, uses chemical weapons. Following the terrorist attack in Turkey last month, when two minibuses exploded in Reihanli killing 52 people, Turkish police found two kilograms of sarin gas, as well as grenades, guns and ammunition, in houses in Adana used by al-Nusra terrorists. Adana is where the CIA has been liaising with Qatar and Saudi Arabia, who fund and back al-Nusra.

Britain, France and the USA want to set up a no-fly-zone over Syria to help the rebels, which even NATO’s new Supreme Allied Commander has pointed out would be an act of war. The British and French states are trying to reassert their control over the Middle East, this time by helping pro-Western groups into power.

The Russian anti-aircraft missiles will help to prevent Britain and France imposing a no-fly zone on Syria to help the rebels. Such a zone was a key part of the build-up to NATO’s attack on Libya. Russia’s actions will help to prevent British and French moves towards a wider, more open war on Syria.

British, French and US aid to the rebels is like Reagan’s aid to the Contras, which the International Court of Justice condemned in 1986 as a violation of international law.