Friday, September 6, 2013

President Obama pushes G20 leaders for support on Syria, he is standing on the wrong side of history, David Cameron pulls off the best piece of Foreign policy work as UK announces £52 million towards medical training and equipment to help civilians

Dear All

US President Barack Obama isn’t having a ‘good’ Syrian crisis; Governments in the West are feeling uneasy about bombing Syria after the chemical weapons attack.

 The US position is clear, without evidence they want to destroy parts of Syria.

In Britain, the view of the House of Commons is not to support the Westminster Government.

The majority of the House has spoken and the answer is No!

In truth, it is the right answer, something doesn’t sit right, why would the Syrian Government do this in civilian areas?

Add in that their army has a large conscript force, so attacking their own neighbours seems rather ill judged.

Analysis from Russian suggests that weapon delivery system isn’t Syrian Army; this analysis should be passed to the US and particularly President Obama.

Two million Syrians have been displaced by the civil war raging, one million children with no proper shelter, food and access to proper care and security.

Bombing is not an option, what is and certainly should be on the table is a diplomatic solution.

The whole Syrian policy was wrong, the West made it worse as they seem to have a policy of ‘regime change’ on the cheap that isn’t helping.

Is World War 3 round the corner?

We should be fixing our problems, we should be showing leadership, instead we have America trying to convince themselves that the UN Security Council should be ignored because it doesn’t suit their purpose.

Obama is using his final day at the G20 summit to continue pushing for foreign support for a US military strike on Syria.

Leaders of France, Turkey, Canada and the UK gave Obama strong backing, why France is backing this is beyond me as previously they had the good sense to stand back from this type of foreign adventure.

A Russian spokesman said a US strike would drive a "nail into the coffin of international law", he is right, we need consensus, we need a new understanding at the UN, particularly among the permanent members of the Security Council.

It cannot be that it is always Russia and China against the US and the rest.

Cold war ended, where’s the new reality?

The head of the UN, Ban Ki-moon, has also denounced talk of military action, calling it "ill-considered".

It is a clear sign that Obama is heading in the wrong direction, the Syrian Government is fighting terrorists who are Al Qaeda backed.

Now we are fighting alongside Al Qaeda, does that make sense to the US State Department which is arguably one of the most professional diplomatic organisations in the World!

Someone should be pointing this out to Obama, has the war on terror come full circle, we help smash democracies with our sworn enemies?

Whether the US likes it or not Syrian although a problem was a stable country, stable means we can do business with them internationally.

If Syria falls you can forget government there, it will be a vast area for extremists setting up training camps like Afghanistan, we also lost the battle for democracy there hence we are leaving.

World Bank president Jim Yong Kim told the BBC that the refugee situation was "disastrous", and required "all hands on board".

That means America, Russia, China, France, and UK, and anyone else who can relive suffering by whatever means they have available.

Kim added:

"As a medical doctor, I've seen the pictures; I've seen the medical data. It really is appalling."

Bombing, this fable limited and targeted new idea is a loser, it’s bad politics and won’t, can’t and doesn’t work.

The US government accuses Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's forces of killing 1,429 people in a poison-gas attack in the suburbs of Damascus on 21 August.

But the problem appears to be proof that the Syrian Government ordered an attack.

Assad blames rebels for the attack.

The Russian President, Vladimir Putin, says it still is not clear which side used the weapons.

Russians are having a good diplomatic year in 2013, the total opposition of US foreign policy of shot to kill and then have the trial later.
At the G20 in St Petersburg, opponents of US military intervention appear to far outnumber supporters within the G20.

The old saying goes that if enough people say you are drunk you best sit down.

China and Russia, which have refused to agree to a Security Council resolution against Syria, insist any action without the UN backing would be illegal.

Should Obama go back to the drawing board?

Yes, people’s lives are at stake, going to war isn’t something done lightly, and American people aren’t overly keen with the position adopted by the White House.

If Obama can’t get his own people onboard, the UN, the Security Council members and the bulk of the G20, maybe he should wake up and smell the coffee, the route on this issue is that we let the UN do their work; we provide aid to refugees and work to sort out a solution.

That solution may mean a U turn, if that is the case, it is time to step up and bite the bullet.

UK Prime Minister David Cameron announced on Friday that the UK would give an additional £52m ($80m) in aid for Syria - much of which will go towards medical training and equipment to help civilians targeted by chemical attacks.

After a less than glowing start, David Cameron has gotten onto the right track; this is the best piece of foreign policy work to come out the Conservatives for some time. In time he look back and say that Westminster voting against his motion for action was the best thing that could possibly happened.

Maybe this can be exported to America, still time to do the right thing.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

No comments: