RT has hosted a panel of guests to discuss the possible scenarios that Syria is facing now that several Western countries are pushing for a military ‘response’, its effect on the region - and what Russia’s response to such an action might be.
RT’s guests were Sunni Hundai, author of the Liberal Conspiracy
Theory, Marcus Papadopoulos, editor of Politics First, and Pavel
Andreev, executive director of the Valdai Club Foundation.
There was a divergence of opinion among the panel’s guest about
whether or not the US and its allies will attack.
Arguing that the UK Labour party is very much opposed to the idea
of military intervention without hard proof of the use of
chemical weapons by the Syrian government, Hundai told RT he does
not think this will happen “because there is a lot of pressure
on President Obama and certainly in the UK on the Prime Minister
Cameron to show firm evidence before they take any action.”
Papadopoulos added that the US and the West have no right to
intervene in the affairs of another foreign state.
“America and its allies are not the policemen of the world.
America has no moral or legal right to attack an independent
sovereign country,” the liberal conspiracy theorist argued,
mentioning that US track record of invading other countries has
been based on “lies.”
“We saw this in Bosnia, we saw this in Kosovo, we saw this in
Iraq, we saw this in Libya, and we’re seeing this again in Syria.
It is lie after lie to achieve geostrategic objectives,”
Papadopoulos said.
“I can hardly see any geostrategic aims,” argued Andreev,
executive director of the Valdai Club Foundation. He thinks the
military intervention in Syria might be reconsidered given
different politicians at the helm in Washington, DC.
“The people that are there in Washington are different from
people that were in 2003. Maybe these people have enough morality
to seek the due diligence process.” However Andreev
said that if the US does indeed attack, Obama “should be
stripped of his noble peace price, if he declares this war.”
In discussions about the destabilized situation on the ground in
Syria, Hundai stated that “Syria is already a mess because
Russia, Iran and Hezbollah are defending Assad and trying to keep
him in place. Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey have lined up
against him and are funding the rebel army.” He has also
pointed out that the United States and the UK will intervene at a
specific point which is “about the usage of chemical weapons.”
Papadopoulos commented by saying that the “US and allies are
acting against Iran and Russia.” Furthermore “the US
stance on Syria is not guided by human rights, democracy and the
rule of law.” He highlighted the double standard of America’s
foreign policy in the region, wondering “why is there no
flotilla on the coast of Saudi Arabia?” Which Papadopoulos
called “the root of extremism and terrorism in the world.”
“It is preposterous nonsense to say that the West’s stance on
Syria is guided by a notion of freedom or human rights- simply
untenable,” he added.
Hundai pointed out that the Western intervention would not be
based on human rights, arguing that if it was a humanitarian
intervention, the West would have intervened at the outset of the
crisis, in March 2011. “The aim is to take revenge for the use
of chemical weapons and to send out a signal that anyone who uses
chemical weapons on its own people will face some kind of
international sanction.”
Hundai told RT the US will “launch a few attacks, only on
military targets in Syria.”
In describing the position of Russia, Andreev calmed fears of a
harsh response. “Russia is definitely not going into war, use
its nuclear deterrence to change the situation. The Russian
position has always been about political transition. It was not
about Assad.”
In fact, Andreev argued that “the timing of the intervention
would be awkward because the political transition process has
been paved.”
Andreev said that the opposition was in a much weaker position
and has limited reasons to attend the Geneva 2 talks, especially
considering the radical elements on the ground. Any
evidence that surfaces, “should be discussed in the Security
Council,” he said.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.