US President Barack Obama requires a “mask” to legitimize unilateral action in Syria, Brian Becker, Director of Answer Coalition, told RT. He needs Russia and China to back a resolution so it can be conducted under a UN banner rather than the US alone.
RT: Obama says the US must remain heavily engaged in the Middle East because there won’t be anyone to fill the vacuum if Washington pulls out – is that a credible claim?
Brian Becker: Well, of course the US is acting in what it perceives to be its own interests, and I would have to say these are not the interests of the American people, per se, who don’t have big oil or banking investments in the Middle East. But there are big banks and there are big oil corporations and they have global interests, and they have particular interests in the Middle East. And the US policy is to protect those interests; that’s where two thirds of the world’s oil is.
President Obama says “we are an exceptional country,” meaning we shed our treasure and our blood for the interests of all but not for our own interests. I mean, that’s bogus, that’s completely a fraud. The US wants to dominate and it’s been the priority of its foreign policy to dominate this oil-rich region for the past 50 years.
RT: In defending past US military interventions, he also continued to build a case for regime change in Syria. How is that being received at the general assembly?
BB: I think all the countries of the world who want to be independent and sovereign countries who realize that President Obama – when he says “sovereignty cannot be a shield for tyrants” – that means the US government is arrogating to itself which regimes, which governments live, and which should be overthrown. So I think for those who are independent – they all see this as a great threat – not only to Syria, but to all those who may at some point defy the empire. Obama said in his speech “we a not an empire, it’s just useful propaganda,” but in fact the US government conduct itself exactly the way an empire does, only this time uses lofty rhetoric and noble causes as the motivation, presumably, for its interests.
RT: Let’s talk about those developments in Syria: The world’s chemical weapons watchdog – it’s said that it’s already cooperating on the chemical disarmament deal – so what about this idea of a UN Security Council resolution – would that actually change anything?
BB: We have to see – what the US and France are trying to do at the Security Council is to bully Russia and bully China in order to get wording into that resolution that would authorize them to carry out a military action under the rubric of the UN. But clearly the Obama administration says it has the authority to act unilaterally, but it would like to have some sort of shield or at least mask for that sort of unilateral operation. So they want to put in language that says that there must be consequences. And President Obama in his speech said if we don’t have consequences to enforce Syria’s compliance – which apparently Syria is complying – then it shows the UN has no ability to enforce international laws in its own resolutions.
We should remind President Obama the UN passed resolution 242 that said to Israel leave the Golan Heights, leave the West Bank – that was 46 years ago. No military action against Israel, and none is in the future. It’s a double standard, it’s hypocrisy. The US is trying to bully the UN Security Council to do what it really wants to do, which is to escalate the conflict in Syria, to overthrow their government.
RT: But isn’t it a fair condition – if Syria simply doesn’t play by the rules and doesn’t comply, then surely some sort of force has got to be put on it in order to make it comply – it’s a fair call isn’t it?
BB: I don’t think so – you notice President Obama said 98 percent of humanity says chemical weapons should be banned. The United States’ principle ally, Israel, refuses to get rid of its chemical weapons stockpile, or biological weapons, or nuclear weapons, so the Obama administrations is in fact quite selective about who can have and who shouldn’t have chemical weapons. But that’s not really the point.
Chemical weapons in this instance are a pretext for an escalating intervention. The Obama administration’s hand has been steadied because of global opposition, including massive domestic opposition in the United States. They’re trying to come back but they are in a weakened position right now.