Category Archives: Middle East

Europe’s Pro-War Leftists: Selling “Humanitarian Intervention”

“I believe in two principles: never again war and never again Auschwitz.”[1]

These words could be heard at a convention of the Green Party of Germany in May 1999, during the NATO bombing campaign against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in which Germany participated. The speaker was the Green politician Joschka Fischer, Germany’s Foreign Minister at the time. His comment was meant to be a justification for the war against the Serbian people, the same people that already had to suffer under German imperialism in two World Wars.

In the 70s this same Mr. Fischer was a radical leftist activist and in the 80s he became one of the founders of Germany’s Green Party. The premise behind its creation was to give political and parliamentary representation to all the different environmentalist and anti-war groups. At that time, if anyone had spoken about the possibility that this same party would one day play an active role in a war of aggression against Yugoslavia at the end of the millennium, it would have been labeled as absurd. In fact, direct German involvement in any war used to be completely taboo and no one from the Left or from the Right would have even dared to consider such an option; the popular consensus was that after 1945, no war would be started out of Germany ever again.

This political transition in Germany, which has been mirrored across much of Western Europe, is important for understanding how it came to pass that many mainstream “leftists” became modern-day warmongers, sometimes to even greater extremes than their conservative counterparts.

It is their promotion of the self-contradictory concept of “humanitarian interventionism” (as carried out, for example against Yugoslavia in 1999 and Libya in 2011) that has come to make the approach of allegedly “progressive” policy-makers so subversive. Their moral authority is spun as being much more credible than the more blatant ranting of neo-conservative preachers of hate.

In Western Europe, most proponents of militarisation on the mainstream Left are associated with Green or Social Democratic parties. One of the first advocates of militarized “humanitarian intervention” was Daniel Cohn-Bendit, member of the Green Party of France. He was also one of the masterminds behind the abolition of European nation states in favour of a stronger European Union. During the Civil War in the former Yugoslav Republic of Bosnia, Cohn-Bendit demanded that the Serbs had to be bombed, and anyone who didn’t agree with that would carry the same burden of guilt as those who turned a blind eye to the Fascist mass murder in World War Two:

“Shame on us! We, the generation that held our parents’ generation in such contempt because of its political cowardice, now we watch on seemingly helpless, powerless and yet still holier-than-thou as the Bosnian Muslims are ethnically cleansed.”[2]

Indeed, the ploy of drawing parallels with Nazi crimes in order to demonise a rival who stands in the way of Western geostrategic interests was perfected during the Bosnian war. A case in point was the story of the so-called death camps in Bosnia: In August 1992, a British newspaper published a photograph of an emaciated man behind a fence, which was supposed to be proof of the existence of Nazi-style concentration camps run by Serbs. However, as German journalist Thomas Deichmann later found out, the man was standing outside the fence and therefore was not imprisoned behind barbed wire.[3] To be sure, detention camps existed on all sides and there is no doubt that conditions there were often horrific. The point, however, is that Western propagandists tried to whitewash the Croat and Muslim sides, portraying them wholly as victims, while at the same time presenting the Bosnian Serbs as barbarians and Nazis.

Using labels to demonize opponents or even whole populations is not a new concept when it comes to the mudslinging of propaganda wars. A de-politicised understanding of Fascism merely as a form of nationalism makes it possible for postmodern leftists to present wars of aggression as “humanitarian interventions” and therefore as “anti-fascism” in action. The more traditional leftist idea of anti-fascism would view fascism not only as a chauvinist/racist ideology, but would also consider its economic background and the alliance of high finance, the arms industry and political elites.

When the United Nations Security Council proposed Resolution 1973 on the establishment of a no-fly zone over Libya in March 2011, which served as a pretence for attacking the country, Germany abstained from voting, along with Russia, China, India and Brazil. The German conservative-liberal coalition government was heavily criticised by Social Democratic and especially Green circles for not taking a stronger pro-war stance. Former Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer attacked his successor Guido Westerwelle for not having supported the resolution of the warmongers, and added that Germany could now “forget about a constant seat in the U.N. Security Council.”[4]

Therefore it is not surprising that in the current conflict in Syria (which is significantly orchestrated and financed by the West, as were the civil wars in Yugoslavia and Libya), Western Europe’s Green politicians and other liberal leftists are the strongest proponents of a policy of escalation towards the Al Assad government. Claudia Roth, one of the two current German Green Party chairs, recently hosted a TV debate on Syria and shouted down any voice of reason pleading for negotiations with the Al Assad government.[5] One of them was writer and politician Jürgen Todenhöfer, who holds a balanced position on the conflict and recently travelled to Damascus for an interview with Al Assad, in order to let the Western world hear the “other side” as well.[6] The fact that anyone let Al Assad voice his opinion was already too much for Ms. Roth, who expressed her irritation with Mr. Todenhöfer’s trip to Syria in no uncertain terms.

At the same time, the first Western head of state to openly raise the possibility of attacking Syria was France’s newly elected “socialist” president François Hollande. In his statement he let the world know that he would “not rule out international military intervention in Syria”.[7]

Hollande’s election to the presidency expressed many people’s hope that Nicolas Sarkozy’s five years of reactionary, neoliberal and corrupt leadership would be replaced by a more humane way of governing. Unfortunately, when it comes to foreign policy, Hollande seems to carry on his predecessor’s neo-colonial agenda.[8]

In the cases of both Libya and Syria, Bernard-Henri Lévy, a French “nouveau” philosopher, professional self-promoter and frequent object of media mockery, called upon his government to intervene and prevent the “killing of innocent civilians”. [9] Of course his open call for war was sold as humanitarian grassroots activism. In an open letter to the French president, published (among others) by Huffington Post, Lévy used the massacre in Hula as a justification for intervention.[10] The fact that evidence indicates that the victims of this terrible crime were supporters of Al Assad’s government who were killed by insurgents[11] doesn’t matter to the black-and-white world of these virtuous philanthropic activists.

From “Auschwitz” in Bosnia and Kosovo to a “Syrian dictator” slaughtering women and children, the strategy of overcoming people’s resistance towards wars of aggression by appealing to their guilty conscience – the “don’t turn a blind eye” tactic – stays the same. And no one plays this game better than today’s “progressive” false samaritans.

Bearing all this in mind, we return to the example of Germany. To date, the country’s government has actively participated in spreading anti-Syrian propaganda, but has not expressed a pro-intervention enthusiasm comparable to the “progressive” pro-war disinformation campaign. Although not many positive things could be said about Chancellor Merkel’s neoliberal, U.S.-friendly government, Germany’s present administration at least does not seem to be inclined to risk a military adventure to the same extent as the Green/Social Democratic opposition, and continues to speak in favour of a “diplomatic solution”.[12] And while the current government’s track record proves they are far from innocent in matters of interventionism[13], things could get even worse during elections in 2013 if Germany’s government again forms a Social Democratic/Green coalition, as was the case from 1998 to 2005. After all, they managed to pull off a historic achievement by making war presentable again to the German public for the first time since 1945.

[8] During his presidency, Sarkozy was responsible for militarised intervention both in Cote d’Ivoire and Libya.

[13] All this, however, despite the fact that the German army and Federal Intelligence Service is providing military aid to the insurgents in Syria. See:

Published on:

Global Research, September 21, 2012

Leave a comment

Filed under Articles in English, Former Yugoslavia, Middle East, Western Europe

VIDEO: Libya’s Destabilization Serves Western Political Agenda

Originally aired on Russia Today, September 12, 2012


Washington continues to support militant Islamist groups as long as it’s politically expedient to do so, says global affairs researcher Benjamin Schett.

US military adventurism, and the war crimes committed by the country’s forces, impoverish the entire region and ultimately lead to a rise in the number of Islamic militant groups, he told RT. Such groups, he says, can end up posing a threat to US citizens.

Schett spoke to RT about the killing of American Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other embassy staff in Libya.

RT: Ambassador Stevens was responsible for building Washington’s relations with the Libyan post-revolution interim leadership. Does that indicate that the people behind the attack are of a very different mindset to Libya’s current rulers?

Benjamin Schett: Not necessarily. The United States supported militant extremist Islamic groups in order to topple the government of Muammar Gaddafi last year. And one example is the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. It is, according to the Washington Post, a terrorist organization with links to al-Qaeda. Nevertheless, in 1996, they received support from British Secret Service MI6 to kill Gaddafi, which did not work out, as we know. After 9/11, in 2001, they still got support from Western powers during the so-called uprising in Libya last year and the NATO bombing campaign. They got support from the US and Saudi allies, so obviously the US never stopped supporting militant Islamist groups as long as it’s in their geopolitical interests.

RT: What does this attack say about the authorities’ grip on security in post-Gaddafi Libya?

BS: It shows that Libya is part of a broader balkanization of the Middle East and South and Central Asia, which is a direct result of US policies. We saw what happened in Afghanistan and Iraq after the US invasion – the clashes between Sunnis and Shias. We see what’s happening now in Syria, where the sectarian violence is being supported from the outside – from the Gulf states, from the US, and from France. And it’s what’s happening in Libya – all these different militias that received support in order to fight against Gaddafi are now turning against each other and are pushing for a tribalization of Libya.

RT: It’s believed the attacks were a response to this US film deemed offensive to Islam. But could it also be a side effect of US foreign policy in the region?

BS: Definitely. The whole story of the clash of civilizations and Christianity versus Islam – all these stories, they don’t show the real picture. The real picture is that the majority of Muslims are as peaceful as the majority of Christians or Jews or whoever. The policy of supporting militant extremist Islamist groups as long as it serves geopolitical interests and fighting secular independent governments in the Middle East, or direct military intervention and war crimes, impoverishing of the whole region – certainly this leads to an increase of Islamic militant movements, which can turn out to be a threat to US citizens, as we’ve just seen.

RT: It’s the first death of a high-profile US diplomat on duty abroad since 1979. Could this killing affect future policymaking in the State Department?

BS: The US official propaganda has a very cynical term regarding civilian deaths during a bombing campaign, called “collateral damage.” Of course, they wouldn’t use this term when it comes to the death of a US citizen. But I think in the mindset of the US establishment, in a certain way this also was collateral damage because it won’t make them stop their policies in the Middle East, even if it threatens the lives of American citizens.

Leave a comment

Filed under Articles in English, Middle East, Videos

US Sponsored “Islamic Fundamentalism”: The Roots of the US-Wahhabi Alliance

The alliance between the United States and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia helped spread the ideology of fundamentalist Sunni Islam all over the globe. The majority of its victims are not citizens of Western countries, but citizens of countries that U.S. elites consider a threat to their economic and geopolitical interests. Many victims of Sunni extremism (often called Wahhabism or Salafism[1]) are in fact Muslims (often with a secular leftist or nationalist political background), moderate Sunni or members of Shiʿite Islamic faith.

This article addresses the history of Wahhabi fundamentalism and the examples of Afghanistan in the 80s, as well as the current situation in Syria. Both cases illustrate America’s responsibility for the destruction of secular, socially progressive societies in the Islamic world and elsewhere.

The Origins of Wahhabism

Wahhabi ideology serves U.S. interests for several reasons. Its followers’ archaic perception of society makes them reject any kind of progressive social change. Therefore they are well equipped to push back socialist, secular or nationalist movements, whose independence-oriented policies are a threat to America’s geopolitical agenda. Although Wahhabism certainly is not representative of the majority of Sunni Muslims, Wahhabi Muslims are Sunni extremists, which causes them to maintain an extremely hostile stance towards Shi’te Islam.

After the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which brought down the secular-nationalist regime of Saddam Hussein (a Sunni), the influence of Shi’ite-dominated Iran increased and caused a certain power shift in favor of Shiʿite Islam in the region. Due to this strengthened Shiʿite representation, American activities in the Middle East in recent years have been almost exclusively directed against Shiʿite interests. The emancipation of deprived Shiʿite masses in Iraq, Bahrain, Yemen or Lebanon are contrary to aspirations from the side of the U.S., whose main allies in the region (next to Israel) consist of repressive Sunni regimes and terror groups.

In the case of Syria, President Bashar Al-Assad (an ally of Iran) and the secular Syrian society particularly evoke the hatred of extremists. The fact that Al-Assad belongs to the Alawite minority (a mystical religious group and a branch of Shiʿite Islam) makes him unacceptable to Wahhabi purists.

Portraying Syria ruled solely by its Alawi minority (as some mainstream journalists tend to do) would nevertheless be wrong. As Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya pointed out, among the Syrian top officials killed by a terrorist attack on July 18, 2012, Sunnis and Christians could be found among the Alawites.[2]

It is therefore worth examining the background of these enemies of secularism, multi-faith society and progress. Wahhabism is a puritanical branch of Sunni Islam that was founded in the middle of the 18th Century by Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab, a theologian who propagated holy war and the “purification” of Islam. One of his inspirations was Ibn Taymiyyah (1263-1328), an early Islamic fundamentalist scholar who opposed any kind of intellectual debate that differentiated between the word of god and its interpretation.

Al-Wahhab and his ideas might have been forgotten by history if he hadn’t made a pact with Muhammad ibn Saud, emir of Al-Diriyah and ruler of the first Saudi state in 1744.

According to Robert Dreyfuss, the Saudi-Wahhabi alliance:

“…began a campaign of killing and plunder all across Arabia, first in central Arabia, then in Asir in Southern Arabia and parts of Yemen, and finally in Rhiadh and the Hijaz. In 1802 they raided the Shiite holy city of Karbala in what is now Iraq, killing most of the city’s population, destroying the dome over the grave of a founder of Shiism, and looting property, weapons, clothing, carpets, gold, silver and precious copies of the Quran.”[3]

In order to keep the faith “pure”, influences from Greek philosophy, Christianity and Judaism had to be exterminated. Intellectuals, artists, scientists and progressive rulers were declared enemies with no right to live.

It goes without saying that the idea of representing the pure teaching of Islam was fanatically pursued; in fact, Wahhabi warriors were fighting in order to spread the most archaic lifestyle that could be found within Arab culture.

In the second half of the 19th century, British imperialism discovered the house of Al Saud as a potentially useful ally in its attempt to gain influence in the Middle-East.

Riadh had been invaded by the Ottoman sultan in 1818. The Al Saud returned to power in 1823, but its area of control was mainly restricted to the Saudi heartland of the Nejd region, known as the second Saudi State. In 1899 the British helped the Al Saud establish a base in its protectorate of Kuwait, in order to reconquer Riadh, at that time ruled by the pro-Ottoman Al Rashid dynasty.

Originally Great Britain’s motivation to gain influence in the Middle-East was caused by their view of Arabia and the Gulf as being “one link in a chain that ran from Suez to India, the two anchors of the empire.”[4] Vast oil reserves would be discovered in the 1930s.

Great Britain became the first country to recognize the new Saudi Arabia as an independent state, establishing its current borders in 1932. A “Treaty of Friendship and Good Understanding” between the British Crown and the Saudi monarch was signed already in 1927. The 1924 integration of the holy sites of Mecca and Medina into the kingdom through military conquest inevitably contributed to firmly entrenching Al Saud’s authority in the Muslim world.

U.S. interest in Saudi Arabia started to grow as well around the same time, and a treaty with the California Arabian Standard Oil Company was agreed upon in 1932. It was the first such agreement created in cooperation with a western oil company.

In the following years and decades, the increasing revenues in oil business enabled the Saudi financing of religious institutions worldwide, propagating extremist interpretations of Islam. The flow of petro-dollars was of great importance to Saudi elites, who adapted a luxurious lifestyle and at the same time maintained an alliance with the Wahhabi base.[5] They also maintained ties to U.S. state officials, who welcomed Saudi oil as well as radical Islam, as long as it was directed against those standing in the way of America’s geopolitical agenda.

“Foreign aid” financed by the Kingdom was tremendous, according to U.S. “anti-terror” expert Alex Alexiev (though he doesn’t acknowledge the U.S. involvement in spreading Wahhabi terror):

“Between 1975 and 1987, the Saudis admit to having spent $48 billion or $4 billion per year on ‘overseas development aid’, a figure which by the end of 2002 grew to over $70 billion (281 billion Saudi rials).These sums are reported to be Saudi state aid and almost certainly do not include private donations which are also distributed by state-controlled charities. Such staggering amounts contrast starkly with the $5 million in terrorist accounts the Saudis claim to have frozen since 9/11.”[6]

A report from September 2009, made by the United States Government Accountability Office, points out the historical relevance of U.S.-Saudi relations:

“Relations between the United States and Saudi Arabia have a long historical context. Since the establishment of the modern Saudi state in 1932, and throughout the Cold War, the governments of the United States and Saudi Arabia developed a relationship based on shared interests, including energy production and combating communism. For instance, both Saudi Arabia and the United States became major supporters of the Afghan Mujahideen’s struggle against the Soviet invasion in 1979.”[7]

Saudi-backed archaic ideology served as an incentive to thousands of confused young men to receive military training in Pakistan in the 1980s, from where they were sent to Afghanistan in order to kill Russians.

America’s ‘Holy War’ against the USSR in Afghanistan

In a famous interview from 1998, former National Security Advisor to President Carter and geopolitical strategist, Zbigniew Brzezinski, openly admitted that the hidden agenda of U.S. involvement in the war between Soviet troops and Afghan Mujahideen (1979-1988) was about “giving to the USSR its Vietnam war.” He also admitted that American covert support of Islamist fighters in Afghanistan had already started six months prior to the beginning of Soviet intervention in order to create a trap that would eventually lead to the collapse of the USSR. Nothing about this is worth regretting, according to Mr. Brzezinski, not even the U.S. alliance with radical Islam:

“What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?”[8]

In addition, the former Pakistani regime under General Zia Ul Haq, whose political program consisted of a plan of “Islamisation” of the country, was the main American ally when it came to training Islamist fighters. This happened under close cooperation between the CIA and the Pakistani intelligence agency ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence). The ideological indoctrination of the people supposed to fight against the Soviets was being delivered by Pakistani madrassas, schools of radical (Wahhabi) Islam, financed by Saudi Arabia.[9]

While U.S. officials justified their support for the Mujahideen by presenting them as some kind of supposed freedom fighters, their Islamist allies showed less restraint in revealing their plans for Afghanistan. One example was the ISI Director General at the time, Akhtar Abdur Rahman Shaheed, who expressed his opinion quite undiplomatically: “Kabul must burn! Kabul must burn!”[10]

While Brzezinski achieved his goal, the fate of Afghanistan is well known: decades of civil war, brutality, analphabetism, the worst possible violation of women’s rights, extreme poverty and sectarian violence. Not to mention pollution by depleted uranium causing a sharp increase in cancer rates thanks to the U.S. bombing campaign from October 2001.

United States and Saudi Arabia against Secular Syria

Many other scenarios involving CIA/Saudi-sponsored terrorism took place in the years following the collapse of the Soviet Union (e.g. in Chechnya, Bosnia, Libya etc.).

Currently, Syria’s secular, multi-ethnic and multi-faith society is being targeted by these very same forces, as well as reactionary regimes belonging to the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (GCC) and Turkey. As with the war in Afghanistan in the 80s, U.S. involvement in the Syrian crisis is intended to isolate Iran and, once again, target Russia. In conjunction, Wahhabi extremists are carrying out the same work as their forefathers in the 18th Century, namely fighting all tolerant forms of Islam.

Might this have been the reason why insurgents killed the youngest son of Syria’s highest Islamic authority, Grand Mufti Ahmad Badreddine Hassoun? Indeed, the position of the Grand Mufti is not aligned with Wahhabi extremism, as was clearly shown in last year’s interview with Der Spiegel:

“I see myself as the grand mufti of all 23 million Syrians, not just Muslims, but also Christians and even atheists. I am a man of dialogue. Who knows, maybe an agnostic will convince me with better arguments one day, and I’ll become a non-believer. And if I’m enthusiastic about the opposition’s political platform, I also might change sides.”[11]

In addition, several events that took place on the day this particular interview are worth noticing:

“During the late afternoon, the grand mufti has other appointments: condolence visits with a Christian and a Muslim family. In the evening, he will have to comfort his wife once again, who is completely distraught over the death of Saria. He was the youngest of the couple’s five sons, and the only one still living at home. Saria’s fellow students are holding a vigil at his stone sarcophagus, even now, four weeks after the murder. The young man’s last resting place can be found in the courtyard of a modest mosque. Sheikh Hassoun visits this sad place every day.”[12]

This certainly does not correspond with the Western media’s picture of fanatical Islamists, who consider the death of their sons a sign of honour and martyrdom, as long as they have died under circumstances that caused the death of “infidels” as well. Such behaviour is encouraged by Saudi Arabia, as can be seen on a shocking video available on YouTube. The shocking footage features a father in Jeddah, selling his son to be sent to Syria as a suicide bomber. Even if one questions the authenticity of the video, the ongoing suicide bombings in Syria are undoubtedly real:


To be sure, the religion of Islam poses just as much or little a threat to the world as the religions of Judaism or Christianity. Nevertheless, certain radical pockets exist who use and abuse religion to justify their disgust for dissent and whose totalitarian practices can only be classified as fascist. Their attempts to destroy reason, progress and humanist ideals make them ideal tools for the most aggressive imperialist factions within the U.S. establishment to push for regime change and implement their exploitative impoverishing agendas.


1“Wahhabi” is a term usually used in a critical context by Muslims. Salafi means “ancestor” and is most often a term used by Sunni fundamentalists to describe themselves.

3 Dreyfuss, Robert: “Devil’s Game: How the United States helped unleash fundamentalist Islam”, New York 2005, S. 37.


5 See: Anhalt, Utz: Wüstenkrieg – Jemen, Somalia, Sudan in der Geostrategie der USA, S. 32.

10 See: “Silent soldier: the man behind the Afghan jehad General Akhtar Abdur Rahman Shaheed”, by Mohammad Yousaf, Karachi, 1991.


12 Ibid.

Published on:

Global Research, September 7, 2012

1 Comment

Filed under Articles in English, Middle East

Iran’s Nuclear Program: IAEA Desperate to Find “Smoking Gun”

In its latest report, the IAEA once again repeats the standard accusations about Iran “not providing the necessary cooperation”[1]. Following from this, the agency claims to be “unable to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, and therefore to conclude that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities.”[2]

It is not surprising that mainstream media is gleefully jumping on these claims. Among the usual suspects is the New York Times, pointing out that over the summer Iran has “doubled the number of centrifuges installed deep under a mountain near Qum.”[3]

However, this process is nothing that Iran hadn’t already declared almost three years ago. As we can see in an IAEA report from November 2009:

“The IAEA verified Iran’s declaration that the facility was designed to hold 16 cascades of approximately 3000 P-1 centrifuges, though Iranian officials noted that the plant could be reconfigured to hold centrifuges of a more advanced design should such a decision be taken. Iran stated that the facility will be operational in 2011.”[4]

As the New York Times states, the current number of Fordow-based centrifuges is 2140, not yet the estimated 3000 from the 2009 report.[5]

In addition, the repeated claim of Iran still having an increased stockpile of 20 percent enriched uranium can hardly be described as an illegal act. 20 percent enrichment is needed in order to build isotopes serving medical purposes. Gareth Porter points out that Iran has actually been quite cooperative on this matter as well:

“Iran has actually reduced the amount of 20-percent enriched uranium available for any possible breakout to weapons grade enrichment over the last three months rather than increasing it.”[6]

As we see from the IAEA report, all the enrichment taking place in the facilities of Fordow as well as Natanz is being carried out under the use of the so-called IR-1 type of centrifuges. This type of centrifuge is outdated (from the 1970s) and is inefficient for high enrichment of uranium. By using this type of method “you lose a lot of material”, according to Olli Heinonen, former deputy director of the IAEA.[7] In fact, Pakistan replaced these systems back in the 80s in order to develop their own nuclear weapons:

“This is why A.Q. Khan [Pakistani nuclear scientist and founder of the country’s atomic bomb project] in the 1980s himself gave up the P-1 design and developed the more efficient centrifuges used today by Pakistan.”[8]

Christina Walrond, a research analyst for the Institute for Science and International Security, referred to the outdated centrifuges as well. According to The Daily Beast:

“It is interesting to note they have not yet deployed any of the advanced machines despite having worked on them for a long time.”[9]

Might there be a chance that Iran has not yet installed advanced machines in order not to give the US/Israeli warmongering establishment any pretense that they could use as “justification” for their plans to attack? Obviously the factions pushing towards an attack on Iran do not leave any option unexplored when it comes to the creation of accusations, absurd as they may be.

In addition, unlike Israel, Iran has joined the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. This treaty does not allow the creation of nuclear weapons, and enrichment for peaceful purposes is legal. The watchdogs so far have not found any evidence for non-peaceful nuclear enrichment in Iran, and they have permanent access to the country’s nuclear facilities. Despite that, the IAEA demands access to the military site of Parchin. However meeting this kind of requirement is not mandatory, according to the NPT. Iranian MP Jalil Jafari explains the refusal by Iran’s government for IAEA inspections in Parchin as follows:

“In one of the clauses of the report, the issue of inspecting the Parchin site has been stated once again. But the point that should be taken into consideration is that no nuclear activity has been carried out at the Parchin site and the Parchin site is a military site. And permission to inspect military centers has not been granted to IAEA inspectors under any of the articles of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.”[10]

Prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, members of the Bush administration at least made an effort to invent fake evidence on the alleged existence of Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. This time, against Iran, accusations without any basis seem to be sufficient in order justify a pro-war policy.



[2]    Ibid.






[8]    Ibid.

[9]    Ibid.


Published on:

Global Research, September 5, 2012




Leave a comment

Filed under Articles in English, Middle East

Interview: “Stop Imperialism” with host Eric Draitser

Eric sits down with Benjamin Schett to discuss the growing debate over Switzerland’s neutrality and possible entry into the European Union. Benjamin explains the historical and contemporary value of Swiss neutrality as well as the Left’s ignorance on the subject. Benjamin and Eric also examine the current and future economic situation in Europe and the rise of SYRIZA. Additionally, Benjamin explains the propaganda and disinformation regarding the smashing of Yugoslavia and the parallels between that project and what we see being done to Syria.

Benjamin Schett is an independent journalist and researcher based in Switzerland. He is a frequent contributor to and other sites. Visit his blog at

To listen to the interview, visit the Stop Imperialism website:
[Length 01:06:23m]

Leave a comment

Filed under Articles in English, Former Yugoslavia, Middle East, Western Europe

The Death of Swiss Neutrality? Foreign Policy in the Service of Imperialism

Switzerland, a country traditionally reputed as a model for democracy and order, is nonetheless politically rife with contradictions. On one side many tend to praise the country’s high living standards, its system of direct democracy and its remarkable range of high quality products popular around the world. On the other hand the practice of bank secrecy has made Switzerland a popular destination for money launderers of all kinds throughout the decades.

Although offshore safe havens such as the British Channel Islands, the Cayman Islands, Bermuda and others nowadays enjoy notably higher popularity for large-scale financial criminal activities, Switzerland remains the primary destination in many people’s minds when it comes to dictators, speculators or mafia bosses hiding their dirty money from the not quite long enough arm of the law.

Another key concept many associate with Switzerland is its strict policy of political neutrality. Indeed Switzerland is the second oldest neutral country in the world; it has not fought a foreign war since its neutrality was established by the Treaty of Paris in 1815.

 Though Switzerland’s ambivalent position during World War II was justifiably criticised by many, the state’s neutral stance has generally been appreciated all over Europe and the rest of the world. Even British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, who was certainly no fan of neutrals, said:

”Of all the neutrals, Switzerland has the greatest right to distinction. . . What does it matter whether she has been able to give us the commercial advantages we desire or has given too many to the Germans. . .? She has been a democratic state, standing for freedom in self-defence. . . and largely on our side.”[1]

Swiss neutrality makes the country a good meeting ground for negotiations between conflicting global parties. Even the United States, who do not maintain official diplomatic relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran, rely on Swiss support in order to have a diplomatic channel:

“In the absence of diplomatic or consular relations of the United States of America with the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Swiss government, acting through its Embassy in Tehran, serves as the Protecting Power of the USA in Iran since 21 May 1980. The Swiss Embassy’s Foreign Interests Section provides consular services to U.S. citizens living in or travelling to Iran.”[2]

As a diplomatic contact point between the U.S. and Iran, it is logical that Switzerland would have no valid reason for refusing to meet with Iranian officials. But even a short encounter between the former Swiss federal president Hans Rudolf Merz and the Iranian president Mahmood Ahmadinejad at the United Nations Durban II anti-racism conference in Geneva 2009 was going too far, according to officials from Israel, America’s closest Middle East ally:

“Netanyahu’s office later said that he and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman decided to recall Ambassador Ilan Elgar from Berne ‘for consultations and in protest at the conference in Geneva.’”[3]

Further testing Switzerland’s neutrality, U.S. and Israeli officials criticised Switzerland for not taking part in the oil embargo against Iran in July 2012.[4]

Relationship with the European Union

Although it does not belong to the European Union, Switzerland collaborates closely with its member states and the majority of Swiss exports are reserved for the EU market. Nevertheless, according to Jean-Claude Juncker[5], Prime Minister of Luxembourg and one of the key architects of EU integration, Switzerland’s independence remains “a geostrategic absurdity” because its position is an anomaly among other European states[6].

Indeed, there is no doubt that Swiss neutrality could not effectively continue if the country was to join the European Union, as EU member states are currently being forced to give up more and more of their fiscal sovereignty.

However, in Switzerland itself, where all major political parties have guaranteed representation in government, many forces are trying to push the country in a direction that would be more in line with the geostrategic roadmap of Brussels’ key players. In particular, Switzerland’s mainstream leftist party would like to see its country join the EU sooner rather than later. The fact that dominating EU-member states have participated in numerous U.S.-led military aggressions (e.g. Yugoslavia in 1999, Afghanistan in 2001 and Libya just this past year) apparently does not seem to faze the pro-EU stance of many Swiss leftists.

In June 2012, the Social Democratic Party’s faction of the Swiss General Assembly confirmed once again that they do not see a future in bilateral cooperation with the EU, specifying that joining the EU would be the “better institutional way.”[7]

Swiss Social Democrats also support Swiss participation in NATO programs such as the Partnership for Peace, Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council and NATO Parliamentary Assembly.[8]

Ironically, Switzerland’s mainstream “leftists” are the most unscrupulous proponents of militarism and imperialism, operating through the rhetoric of shamelessly demagogic “humanitarian” and “internationalist” phrases. For example, when the so called “Republic of Kosovo” declared unilateral independence in February 2008, “neutral” Switzerland was among the first countries to recognise the U.S./NATO protectorate disguised as a state. This happened mostly thanks to the efforts made by the former Federal Councillor for Foreign Affairs, Micheline Calmy Rey (a Social Democrat), who had already lobbied for recognition of Kosovo for months.

In May 2012, the Federal Councillor for Foreign Affairs, Didier Burkhalter, attended the NATO conference in Chicago and promised closer collaboration between NATO and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) when Switzerland takes over OSCE presidency in 2014.[9] Furthermore he argued in favour of Swiss participation in NATO’s so called “Cyber Defence” program.[10]

The latest disturbing news on Switzerland’s role in the international community concerns the conflict in Syria, when it was revealed that Syrian anti-government insurgents have Swiss weapons in their arsenal, as the Swiss Sonntags-Zeitung[11] reported:

“The records, photographs, were made on Thursday in the Syrian village of Marea (Aleppo) and show hand grenades of the type shown OHG92 and SM 6-03-1, which were produced by the [Swiss] government-owned arms manufacturer Ruag.”[12]

Allegedly the weapons had been originally sold to the United Arab Emirates, who reportedly delivered them to Syrian insurgents. Other reports indicate the possibility that the arms had been used previously by anti-Gaddafi fighters from Libya, who got them from Qatar, which would mean that one of the most aggressive Gulf regimes received Swiss arms.[13]

In December 2011, a temporary ban on sending arms to Qatar was implemented by Switzerland, but was lifted quickly thereafter.[14] On the other hand, Swiss export of weapons to Syria has been banned since 1998. It is revealing that when it comes to arming pro-Western regimes, Switzerland exercises much less constraint.

As reported recently, about 40 senior representatives of various Syrian opposition groups have been meeting “quietly in Germany under the tutelage of the U.S. Institute of Peace (USIP) to plan for how to set up a post-Assad Syrian government.”[15]

Furthermore the project “has been funded by the State Department, but also has received funding from the Swiss Ministry of Foreign Affairs.” [16] According to the Swiss daily Tages-Anzeiger, the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs confirmed its participation and the donation of approximately 50 000 euros for covering “logistic costs”.[17]

The main problem concerning the decision-making process of Swiss foreign policy is that in no other field of Swiss politics can so many decisions be made without asking for the people’s approval in a referendum. This practice runs completely counter to Switzerland’s system of direct democracy, where referendums normally are meant to be a component of the country’s political culture. Therefore it is easy for factions who follow a transatlantic agenda to hijack Switzerland’s foreign policy and undermine the country’s centuries-old sovereignty.

However, defending a nation state’s democratic and social institutions against global imperialist rule would be a progressive act and has nothing to do with outmoded notions of “nationalism”, as Western mainstream leftists would have us believe. It would, rather, be the first step in the struggle for freedom from supranational corporate interests.

It is no surprise, then, that pro-EU pundits like Juncker label Switzerland’s reticence to jump aboard the EU bandwagon (and abandon its neutrality) as “absurd”. Apparently, his definition of the ideal “democratic process” – as dictated by Brussels and applied broadly – is much less questionable:

“We decide on something, leave it lying around and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don’t understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back.”[18]






[5] Jean-Claude Juncker is President of the Eurogroup (a meeting of the finance ministers of the eurozone)





[10] It goes without saying that U.S./NATO’s cyber activities have more to do with attack than defence. See for example RT on U.S.-Cyberwar against Iran:






[16] Ibid.



Published on:

Global Research, August 8, 2012

Leave a comment

Filed under Articles in English, Middle East, Western Europe

Od Bosne do Sirije: Da li se istorija ponavlja?

Свако ко прати изблиза кризу која је настала у Сирији, приметиће да жеље за реформама, које долазе од већине сиријског народа нису повезане са наоружаним снагама које подржавају стране силе. Ове групе, многе од њих припадају Wahabi или Салафи терористима, представљају озбиљну претњу за суните, шиите, алавите, хришћане и друзе који живе у самосталној секуларној држави.

У ствари, извештаји наводе да у местима где су наоружани побуњеници успели да преузму контролу, све што раде своди се на то да изврше „етничко чишћење”. Међутим докле год они који су одговорни за то, раде у складу са интересима САД-НАТО, њихови наводни поступци остају непријављени и медијска пажња се стратешки преусмерава далеко од јавности. (Видети: SYRIA OPPOSITION TARGETS CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY: Christians Expelled from Homs by “Opposition” Al Qaeda Gunmen)

У ствари, многи Сиријци који траже промене се не противе председнику Assad-у, чак и верују у његову спремност да те промене изведе. За извршење таквих реформи међутим је потребно време, јер постоје одређене препреке да би оне биле спроведене. Заиста, после вишедеценијске власти Baath-партије, неке фракције у садашњем режиму имају већи интерес да остане „status quo”, него да њихове привилегије буду угрожене због драстичних промена до којих би дошло услед реформи.

Чак и постоји мирна опозиција у земљи која се залаже за промене кроз мирни дијалог са Владом, знајући да би нагле провокације могле да гурну земљу у хаос. У једном интервјуу „Syria Comment” из октобра 2011, писац Louaj Husein отворени и дугогодишњи противник сиријских власти упозорио је на даље ескалације:

„Ја верујем да су два разлога зашто се смањује број демонстраната. Један је у недавном насилном одговору власти а други је у повећању броја оружаних операција против власти које изводе наоружане групе као што је „Слободна сиријска армија”. Због тога очекујем више крвавих нереда у Сирији.

Међутим, брине ме, уколико не успемо да у кратком року нађемо домаће решење конфликта, бићемо сведоци различитих аспеката грађанског рата у блиској будућности.” (Видети: An interview with Syrian opposition activist Louay Hussein)

Главни западни медији су од одбацили ову процену и игнорисали ове основне чињенице. Пажња медија била је усмерена на протеране „опозиционе“ групе као што је „Сирисјки Национални Савет” (који се већ распао захваљујући доминантној улози “Муслиманске браће”), и „Слободној сиријској армији” коју тајно подржавају Западне земље. Уз то још један извор информација који је веома омиљен у медијима западних земаља, је мала организација смештена у Лондону, под именом „Сиријски посматрачи за људска права” чије се информације, иако никада не потврђене веома широко цитирају.

Све то веома упадљиво подсећа на догађаје који су довели до прошлогодишењег напада НАТО снага на Либију у којем је десетине хиљада Либијских грађана убијено. Али ту постоје две кључне разлике:

1. Овај пут Русија и Кина имају много одлучнију улогу. Оне су већ изразиле своје противљење акцијама које би могле да доведу до агресије на Сирију.

2. Тзв. Либијски „устаници“ су имали своју базу у Бенгазију, на истоку Либије одакле су НАТО снаге могле да се пробију и да изврше бомбардовање током пробијања до Триполија. У Сирији нема сличних услова.

Да ли би ово био разлог да сиријски побуњеници повећају насиље вршећи бомбашке и оружане нападе и тако изазову жесток одговор владиних снага, чиме би дестабилизовали земљу и истовремно повећали сукобе секти. А све у циљу да сукоби ескалирају до тачке, када Западне силе одлуче да могу „оправдају“ своју интервенцију?

Напори за мирно решење сукоба које улаже бивши генерални секретар УН Кофи Анан, имаће шансу само ако Западне силе и њихови Саудијски и Катарски савезници прекину једнострану подршку наоружаним побуњеницима против Assada.

Лекције из историје: Југославија

Историјски гледано, ова ситуација није јединствена и тражи од нас да размотримо како су се слични догађаји одиграли у прошлости посебно током грађанског рата у Југославији 1990-их година који су постали историјски преседан за напад западних сила на нашу земљу. Ови трагични сукоби посебно у Хрватској, Босни и на Косову, послужили су као полигон за дестабилизацију читавог региона, за манипулацију јавним мњењем, да се започне рат са циљем да се промени режим и да се изврши економска а делимично и територијална окупација.

(Видети: Michael Parenti’s incisive speech on the destruction of Yugoslavia:

С обзиром до које границе побуњеници у Сирији могу да рачунају на подршку споља, вреди нагласити неке паралеле са грађанским ратом у Босни (1992-1995). Треба размотирити следеће: током рата, вођа босанских Муслимана Алија Изетбеговић, тајно подржаван од стране западних сила, поставио је као циљ формирање независне Босне под муслиманском влашћу. Међутим, проблем је био што његова визија није представљала вољу већине босанског становништва: према попису из 1991 године, 44% популације се изјашњавало као Босанци /Муслимани а 32,5 % су били Срби и 17% су били Хрвати.

Док су се сви Срби из Босне (који су представљали један од три конститутивна народа у Босни), изјаснили да не желе да напусте југославенску федерацију, Хрвати су подржали референдум о независности Босне. Међутим свако ко је упознат са политичким амбицијама хрватског председника Фрање Туђмана и његових савезника међу босанским Хрватима, схватиће да Хрвати нису подржали референдум о независности Босне, да би остали да у њој живе, већ је то био први корак у спајању територије Босне са већинским хрватским становништвом, са „матицом“ Хрватском.

Гледајући ове чињенице и знајући да је у Хрватској избио грађански рат 1991. године, једини разуман начин да се спречи катастрофа било је могуће наћи кроз искрене преговоре свих страна. То и јесте био циљ најпопуларнијег босанског муслиманског политичара тог времена Фикрета Абдића, који је заступао пројугословенске идеје и који је добио највише гласова на изборима у БиХ 1990. године. Ипак, Алија Изетбеговић – кандидат фаворизован и подржан од стране америчких званичника, преузео је председавање Босном. (Узгред речено, то што је Алија Изетбеговић био у затвору јер је реметио ред у Југославији својим ставовима да: „Не може бити мира и коегзистенције између исламске вере и неисламских социјалних и политичких инситуција”, што је написао у тексту под називом „Исламска декларација” , није сметало онима у Вашингтону.)

У Марту 1992 године, се чинило да је мирно решење на дохват руке. Сва три Босанска лидера (Муслимански/Алија Изетбегоовић, Српски/Радован Караџић, и Хрватски/Мате Бобан), потписали су тзв. Лисабонски Споразум, којим је извршена подела власти по етничком принципу на свим нивоима и делегирање централне власти од стране свих етничких заједница. Међутим Изетбеговић је повукао свој потпис после само 10 дана, а након сусрета са УС амбасадором Вореном Цимерманом. Било је широко познато да су САД подстицале на тренутно признавање независности Босне у то време.

(Погледајте кратак снимак из „Yugoslavia – An Avoidable War”:

После неколико недеља је избио рат, и Запад је био за корак ближе свом циљу националне дестабилизације. Може ли се очекивати иста судбина за Сирију, ако се посматра паралелно учешће Запада у Сирији?

У Сирији као и у Босни напори за проналажење компромиса били би остварени ако би се притисак извршио на обе стране укључене у сукобе. Али уколико једна страна већ има пуну подршку Запада, какав је њихов мотив да успоставе компромис са Владом? У Сирији, устаници имају потпуну страну подршку од самог почетка и због тога аутоматски саботирају сваку могућност стварних преговора.

Даљим погоршавањем ситуације, главни медији агресивно подстичу на интервенцију у Сирији. Неколико изјава противника сиријске владе и неких западних медија, окривили су сиријску владу да је одговорна за бомбашке нападе од 17. и 18. марта у Дамаску и у Алепу (Латакија). Влада је одговорила да није имала разлога, нити је у интересу председника Al Assada да изазива бомбашке нападе у два највећа града у земљи у којима има подршку највећег дела становништва.

Ако се вратимо на босански пример, видећемо ко је имао историјску корист од оваквих догађаја. Дана 27. маја 1992 године, десио се масакр у Главном граду Босне и Херцергвине, Сарајеву, када је убијено много невиних људи који су чекали у реду за мало хлеба. Овај ужасан догађај је одмах и више пута емитован широм света. Само 4 дана касније, 31.маја 1992. године, УН су увеле сурове санкције СФРЈ. За западне доносиоце одлука, било је јасно да су Срби криви за овај ужасан злочин.

Многи стручњаци се нису сложили са тиме да су Срби кривци, ту посебно треба поменути генерал-мајора Lewis Mac Kenzie, који је у то време био командант УН трупа у Босни:

„Улице су биле блокиране непосредно пред инцидент. Када су се људи постројили у реду, појавили су се медији али су остали на дистанци. Догодио се напад и медији су били баш у том моменту и на месту догађаја. Највећи број убијених људи били су „питоми Срби”. (MASSACRE IN THE LINE FOR BREAD)

Слични догађаји су се десили и 1994. и 1995. (Видети пример „Yugoslavia-An AvoidableWar” u celini :

Oво је имало за последицу НАТО бомбардовање Босанских Срба у периоду од 30. августа до 20. септембра 1995. године, што су Западњаци оправдавали „Хуманитарним разлозима за интервенцију”. Пратећи нападе у Дамаску и Алепу, да ли се спрема неко слично „оправдање“ и за Сирију?

Велика је иронија и лицемеран став који показује америчка власт, која позива на мир с једне стране а истовремено је највећи светски добављач оружја. Док Обамина администрација позива сиријске побуњенике да положе оружје, постоји велика разлика између званичних изјава и онога што се дешава на терену. У току је реализација уговора у вредности од више милијарди долара између САД и Саудијске Арабије ( која је главни снабдевач оружјем сиријских побуњеника), о продаји америчког модерног наоружања. (Видети: Judging Syria: Saudi Arabia’s double standards)

Ови двоструки стандарди су сигурно били примењени и у Босни где је ЦИА кријумчарила оружје иако је на снази званично био ембарго на трговину оружјем. (Видети: Wie der Dschihad nach Europa kam: Gotteskrieger und Geheimdienste auf dem Balkan [How Jihad Came to Europe: Holy Warriors and Secret Services in the Balkans] by Jürgen Elsässer, 2008). [Kaко је џихад дошао у Европу: свети ратници и тајне службе на Балкану] по Jürgen Elsässer, 2008)

Ништа није помогло то што су у оба случаја, и у Сирији и у Босни учествовали ратници Ал Каиде, из неколико арапских земаља. У Сирији они су интегрисали “опозицију”, која је у западним главним медијима проглашена жртвом владиних рација.

Ово не треба да нас изненађује. Они који раде под ознаком „Ал Каида” служе интересима Вашингтона. У Босни су ратници муџахедини обучавали босанску војску, и борили се против Срба и Хрвата, истовремено су Ал Каидине вође одобравали акције босанске муслиманске армије. (Видети: Balkan Investigative Reporting Network, ICTY: BiH Army Knew About Mujahedin Crimes)

Један од босанских муслимана, који је одбио да се бори против Срба, раније поменути Фикрет Абдић, обезбедио је сигурност тако што је склопио мировни споразум са српском страном формирајући “Аутономну покрајину Западна Босна” лоцирану око града Велика Кладуша. Британски политичар Дејвид Овен, описао га је као : “Искреног и поузданог за разлику од сарајевских Муслимана. Он је био присталица преговора и компромиса са Хрватима и Србима, да би се постигао договор, и био је једак према оним Муслиманима који су покушавали да тај споразум блокирају. (Видети : David Owen, “Balkan Odyssey“, 1995, S. 82)

У Августу 1995. године у заједничком нападу који су извели Изетбеговићева армија и хрватска армија, (обе су биле западни савезници) Абдићева мирна аутономна покрајина је пропала.

Често су у медијима сукоби представљени као сукоб “добрих момака против лоших момака”, миротвораца против терориста, сукоб нас против њих. Као што показује овај пример из Босне, читава прича се не може прецизно испричати коришћењем ових стереотипа; нису сви Муслимани били против Срба и сигурно нису сви Муслимани били за Изетбеговића као председника.

И у Сирији је јасно да нису сви они који траже демократске промене, непријатељи владе Аl Аssad-а. Међутим, задирање у ту “сиву зону” коју чини дихотомија добро / зло, доводи у питање “оправдавање” интервенције, а појачавање такве сумње, сасвим сигурно није у интересу главних медија ни интереса Запада коме они служе.

Једно је сигурно: народ на свим странама у сукобу у босанском грађанском рату је страховито пропатио. Али, као и у Сирији важно је утврдити ко има интерес у покретању социјалног хаоса и насиља.

Током читавог југословенског грађанског рата, сепаратистичке снаге су служиле интересима Запада, подржавајући њихов циљ да се дестабилизује и разори земља. Југославија је имала бесплатно школовање, и правичну расподелу прихода. Штитила је своју независност играјући водећу улогу у покрету несврстаних. Заузврат, овај став Југославије био је многим чланицама несврстаних земаља узор, у њиховом одобијању неолибералне диктатуре ММФ.

У погледу Балкана, српски народ је би окривљен од стране Запада због свог чврстог отпора дезинтеграцији Југославије. Србија је била највећа југословeнска република, српски народ је најбројнији, и веома је је пропатио током Другог светског рата. Током тог рата хрватске усташе су систематски уништавале српски народ у Хрватској и Босни. То је била огромна траума. Због тога је за Србе била неприхватљива идеја о животу у отцепљеним републикама Босни и Хрватској, под руководством екстремистичких снага. Реалну слику о улози Србије у југословенским ратовима дао је председник Слободан Милошевић у интервјуу датом током рата на Косову :

“Ми нисмо анђели. Али нисмо ни ђаволи каквим сте нас направили. Наша војска је веома дисциплинована. Паравојне нерегуларне јединице су друга прича. Лоше ствари се дешавају, као што су се дешавале на обе стране у Вијетнамском рату или у сваком рату у ствари. (Видети: Milosevic’s Interview with UPI and a letter to the ‘Independent’ from Jared Israel Letter to the Independent)

Узимајући у обзир све чињенице исто би се могло рећи и за сиријску војску и за друге групе које се боре на Аll Assad-овој страни. Али прихватање амбивалентне позиције у тренутним догађајима у Сирији, као што је тренд у западним либерално- левичарским круговима, значи помагати неоколонијални и империјалистички став западних сила и прихватати њихове псеудо–хуманитарна оправдавања. И то упркос чињеници да су они закували етничке и /или религиозне мржњу и сукобе и игнорисали гласове разума у Југославији исто као и у Сирији, према латинској сентенци: “Завади па владај” (divide et impera).

Напомена аутора: Према задњим извештајима сиријска влада је прихватила Кофи Ананов мировни план у 6 тачака. 1-ог Априла ће ” Сиријски пријатељи” да се сретну у Истамбулу, уједињујући западне силе и арапске земље у појачаној акцији против Владе председника Al-Assad-а. Време ће показати колико ће ова дешавања утицати на сиријску кризу, и потенцијалну ефикасност мировног плана, знајући колико играча је активно и учествује у овом послу.

Benjamin Schett: је независтан истраживач и студент Историје Југоисточне Европе на Универзитету у Бечу. Његова адреса је:

превод текста са енглеског Љиљана Јовановић, за ФБР приредила Б. Диковић
Za Global Research priredila Jugoslava

Tekst na srpskom jeziku možete naći na СРБски ФБРепортер

Leave a comment

Filed under Former Yugoslavia, Middle East, Translations