As the rhetoric of Syria goes up a notch and the West accuses Assad of using chemical weapons, it will be very difficult for the UN inspectors to find out who used them, former deputy speaker of the Belgian parliament Lode Vanoost tells RT.
Western countries threaten Assad with possible military action,
but it will be impossible to target chemical weapon stockpiles
through air strikes without further harming civilians, says
Vanoost. He also argues that the alleged chemical attack outside
Damascus is being used as a pretext for a short term military
campaign.
RT:We see a ratcheting up of war rhetoric by the US
and some European states. Is it timely or is it premature given
this alleged chemical attack? Is that really what should be
happening now or not, do you think?
Lode Vanoost: This is absolutely, totally premature, if
you look at the things that happened in the past, with other
allegations. This is really a time to keep your cool and say
let’s look at the evidence and so forth. The evidence only points
to massive killings by some chemical agent. We do not know who
did it, we don’t know what kind of agents. This is definitely not
the time for such rhetoric.
RT:Why is it so difficult to prove who has or not done
this? If you read the papers there has been a lot of pointing
fingers at Assad but there’s no definite proof.
LV: You have to distinguish between forensic proof, which
is just a matter of chemical testing and so on and getting in the
places, knowing that you are in the right place, knowing that the
people who say it happened there are correct – and that’s the
difficulty. The thing is also, is this really about an event that
causes the West to react like this or is just an excuse, a
pretext, I do believe it a pretext.
RT:So why not wait then for legitimate proof, because
you think it’s an excuse? Do you think they are going to jump the
gun here?
LV: They are going to jump some kind of gun, in what way
we do not know yet. Let’s not forget first of all we are talking
about a possible different kind of intervention there. There is
already an intervention on the ground. There are American and
British and French trainers in the ground. The rebels have arms
that are delivered by Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Let’s not forget
these countries do not produce arms, they just buy them from
western countries, in that way there is already a strong
intervention in this conflict, and the question is what kind
of proliferation there will be.
RT:That’s exactly my next question. How do you think
this is going to pan out, if it happens?
LV: I do not like to guess, my idea is that there is going
to be some kind of air force operation but that is going to very,
very tricky. You should keep in mind that you cannot bomb
chemical stock piles, you exacerbate the situation by doing that.
So they have to do other things. They will do some kind of thing
that they can call meaningful. But I do not believe that in this
situation there is any way that a military intervention can solve
matters, it’s only going to make matters worse.
RT:If it did happen, would it be a short term or a
medium term affair, so you think?
LV: My guess, and I emphasize that’s it’s a guess, is that
it’s going to be a short kind of thing that they do, because I
know very well that a long term operation in Syria is going to be
hell. They already have the experience of what happened in Iraq
and Libya and they are not going to take that risk, I do not
believe so.
RT:I find though, it seems that a political way out of
this isn’t going to happen any time soon, it seems to be getting
further away. Today the Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov
said the claims of the chemical attack, could be aimed at
disrupting any prospect, future talks of peace. The Syrian
opposition in the meantime has said there isn’t going to be any
talks, so I guess that’s knocked Geneva on the head, yeah?
LV: When you say the Syrian opposition that’s not entirely
correct. There is also very little talk about the civilian
unarmed nonviolent opposition who are willing but not allowed by
the British and the US to participate. It’s one thing to say we
are going to have talks and then tell your allies don’t come. I
mean that is just bad faith and that is what is happening at the
moment. Of course what is happening now, is probably like what
the foreign minister said, creating a situation that alters
things on the ground.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.