US 'fueling and orchestrating' war crime against people of Syria

Moscow has expressed its concern over the UN’s “inconsistent” and “unconstructive” approach to dealing with the charges of alleged chemical weapons use in Syria. Sara Flounders explains what could go wrong if the issue is not thoroughly addressed.

Russia has accused the UN of yielding to the pressure of “certain states” and disrupting the investigation into what Moscow says are perfectly verifiable claims, all in order to further condemn the regime of President Bashar Assad, while victimizing rebels. The attack in question took place on March 19 and has claimed the lives of 25 people, with blame being directed both ways.

Sara Flounders, who is the head of the International Action Center in New York, is adamantly opposed to the drumming up of any charges as a pretext for intervention or invasion. She recalls the lessons of Iraq and Libya – both now completely destitute and without properly-functioning governments. Finally, Flounders believes that the US is putting the region’s people in mortal danger by supplying extremists in the area with weapons for the purpose of bringing about regime change in Syria.

RT: The UN says it wants to assess all possible uses of chemical weapons, throughout all of Syria, and not just Aleppo. Russia isn’t too happy about that. Is that not the logical way forward?

SF: Well, it’s the most dangerous way forward, because the US is clearly using the UN and every possible international agency in order to continue their intervention. It’ the US and NATO that are clearly pumping arms into the region, that have orchestrated and created the crisis, using chemical weapons that are quite likely set to create a far more serious crisis, because they have not yet been successful in creating a regime change in Syria, which is their agenda. It’s the agenda of Saudi Arabia, of Turkey – a NATO member – and very much the agenda of the US, who is fueling and orchestrating this war crime against the people of Syria.

RT: The Russian foreign minister has drawn a parallel with Iraq where he says that false reports of weapons of mass destruction of course led to the invasion there. Could we perhaps be seeing something similar happening in Syria?

SF: That’s what’s so dangerous about this. The same scenario, the same playbook seems to be used now in Syria with similar charges. I mean – who has the weapons of mass destruction in the world today? It’s the Pentagon. And that’s a fact. Nevertheless, using the charge against countries that are trying to defend their own sovereignty again and again, has been an excuse for war – for occupation, for destabilization, for pumping in more and more weapons, paying mercenaries and death squads, attempting to foment civil war and sectarian warfare. It’s a very dangerous policy, and the worst and most dangerous ones are again and again, from the Sate Department, from the White House: the warnings that chemical weapons would be an excuse for deeper US involvement. So the charge is a very serious charge!

RT: What would happen if Assad’s regime collapsed – and he has allegedly got stockpiles of chemical weapons: what would happen to those? Is there a danger that they could get into the wrong hands?

SF: Of course, there’s a danger from every angle in this. There’s a Syrian government the people are defending. And the idea of outside intervention, of orchestrated mercenaries sweeping into the region and using it as one more weapons cache, is of course very dangerous for all the people of the region. They have no plan for rebuilding Syria, for providing for people’s needs. We can of course see the enormous payoffs, the loss of life the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, in Libya, have created. If you look at Libya today, it’s without an ounce of stability, a completely non-functional government – this is what they have in store for Syria, where already 70,000 people have died as a result of this US - NATO orchestrated war.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.