Give Peace a Chance!

SyriaBy Adrian Davies. 

It may well be that few readers of this web site greatly care for John Lennon, but no-one can be wrong all the time, not even a dead Beatle.  It really is time to give peace a chance, yet our posturing pygmy of a Prime Minister, unworthy holder of a great office once held by great men, and our yet more odious Foreign Secretary, William Hague (some of whose very specialised interests in the Arab world, as related to me with much hilarity by my sources in the Foreign Office, cannot be repeated on this web site by reason of our libel laws) seem hell-bent on fomenting war against Syria, a country that has never done us any harm, nor wishes us any ill.

The usual tall tales are being trotted out: supposedly, the Syrian government, which is winning its war against terrorists by conventional means, has just used chemical weapons against its own people in a suburb of Damascus, in the face of repeated threats from the would be belligerent powers that such use would “cross a red line” (though the use of depleted uranium shells by Israel in its invasion of Lebanon or the Americans in their invasion of Iraq apparently “do not count”.)

This preposterous tale comes from the same sources as Saddam Hussein’s non-existent weapons of mass destruction that were going to obliterate British bases on Cyprus according to the “doctored dossier” presented to Parliament to justify the second Gulf War. Our rulers might at least think of more original lies!

The adventurism of previous British governments in the region has not turned out well. The second Gulf War did not end in the stable, prosperous , democratic Iraq which the neo-cons promised. It has arguably not ended at all. Suicide bombings inspired by sectarian hatred tear Iraq apart every day. We have nothing but hundreds of dead and mutilated British servicemen and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilian casualties (mere “collateral damage” to our evil elites) to show for the blood and treasure expended in furtherance of the (as yet) unpunished war criminal Tony Blair’s participation in aggression against a state that repressed, not supported Al Qaeda.  So why are we on the verge of getting involved in yet another Middle Eastern quagmire?

It is not in pursuit of a genuine commitment to the liberal internationalist ideology of democracy and human rights, which our elites parrot as a justification for their foreign wars. The Egyptian army has just overthrown the democratically elected President Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood to replace them with a regime under which I for one would much rather live, if I were an Egyptian, but that lacks all democratic legitimacy and has been imposed by brute force at the cost of many, many lives, all with the grumbling acquiescence of the Egyptian army’s American paymasters. There is not the slightest chance of western intervention to restore democracy in Cairo, so why are we so concerned about democracy in Damascus?

Indeed, the Syrian regime embodies western values much better than its enemies. It protects the rights of minorities, not least because President Bashar Al Assad himself belongs to a sect that is small in numbers, but very influential over the army and the state. His government truly values diversity, because it is dependent upon the support of Syria’s many and varied minorities in the face of unchained religious fundamentalism amongst important elements (though by no means all) of the majority. Women enjoy equal access to education and the workplace with men, and may hold political office.

It is not through any residual sense of responsibility for a former colonial possession, since Syria was under French, not British rule in years gone by.  For many centuries, the Turkish (Ottoman) Sultans ruled over Syria, but in 1916, we reached an agreement with the French to divide the Middle Eastern spoils of eventual victory over Turkey, then an ally of Germany, against which we were fighting the “war to end all wars”, purportedly to protect the rights of small nations.

Our agreement with the French to demarcate spheres of influence (or less euphemistically, colonialist control) in the Middle East, called the Sykes-Picot pact after the lead British and French diplomas involved, took no account of the rights of a large nation, that is to say, the Arab nation.

Sykes-Picot gave British diplomacy a bad name in the Arab world for deceit and duplicity, for the courageous and visionary Colonel T. E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia) had, with the encouragement of other elements of the British government, already promised self-government to the Arabs. Lawrence’s object was to encourage the Hasehmite Sharif of Mecca, Husayn ibn Ali, to lead an Arab revolt in the Hejaz against the Turks in order to assist the Allied war effort, which indeed the Sharif did, to good effect.

Little thanks did the Hashemites get for the risks that they took and the blood that they shed in the Allied cause, since they were soon abandoned in favour of the House of Saud, who really do not do democracy or human rights or tolerance of religious minorities or even allow women to drive cars, but have remained close allies of ours (and more pertinently, of the Americans) ever since, and are amongst the principal fomentors of trouble in Syria to-day.

Under the Sykes-Picot pact we received what is now Iraq, while the French received what is now Syria.  While both Damascus and Baghdad had once been great centres of political power, commerce and learning, the frontiers of modern Syria and modern Iraq do not correspond to any previously existing states, though Syria is a more historically coherent political entity.

Iraq is an unlikely mish-mash of ethnicities (Kurd and Arab) and religions (Sunni and Shia Islam, Christians and others besides), while Syria is also ethnically and religiously diverse (majority Arab but minority Kurdish in population, divided by religion between Sunni and Alawite Muslims, Christians, Druze and others, including a small Jewish community, whose right to worship freely according to their own tradition the Syrian government upholds, despite its staunchly anti-Zionist line).

The French colonialist rulers of Syria separated Lebanon from Syria, even though the two had always been administered together historically, and were not considered to be separate nations. The French deliberately played upon the division between Christians and Muslims in Lebanon to create a Lebanese state in which Christians were the largest group, and had the leading role. The French favoured the Christians because they were (and are) very Francophile and did not chafe under rule from Paris, whereas the Muslims did. Unsurprisingly, Syrians of patriotic views did not like the division of their country to suit their French colonialist overlords, who still appear to believe that they can dictate to the Syrians how to run Syria.

Meanwhile, in Syria proper, the French long favoured the Alawites (an offshoot of Shia Islam, whom they now oppose), at first toying with the idea of a separate Alawite state, but later encouraging Alawites to join the Syrian army, in which the Alawites predominated long before Syria became independent of France. One of the Alawite leaders with whom the French worked closely was the grandfather of Syrian President Bashar Al Assad.

French policy in Syria precisely parallelled British policy in Iraq, where (in accordance with the old imperialist maxim of divide and rule) we favoured Sunni Muslims over Shia, and Arabs over Kurds, so that President Saddam Hussein was as much a product of British policy, as President Assad is the heir of French policy.

Syria eventually became independent of France after the Second World War (during which, incidentally, its French colonial rulers sided with the Vichy government, leading to fighting with British forces in the region).

At that time, Arab nationalism, represented in Syria by the Ba’ath party, was the new big idea in the Arab world. Arab nationalism has never had any truck with Salafism (Sunni Muslim fundamentalism). It embraces all Arabs, whether Muslim, Christian or Druze, regardless of religion and sect.

It must be said that pan-Arabism worked better in theory than in practice. An attempt to carry it into effect in the 1950s in the form of the United Arab Republic (a federation of Egypt and Syria) proved short-lived. Syria quickly seceded from the U. A. R.

After a complex political struggle, into the details of which I shall not venture, the Ba’athists eventually came to power in Syria in the 1960s, ironically as a result of the dissolution of the unitary Arab state that they so fervently advocated.

A power struggle within the Ba’ath party led to an acrimonious split (who could have imagined such a thing?) between its Syrian and Iraqi factions. Indeed, the Syrians joined in the first Gulf War on the American side, so bitter was the hatred between President Hafez Al Assad of Syria (the father of President Bashar al Assad) and President Saddam Hussein of Iraq. In those days (not so very long ago) Ba’athist Syria was the ally, not the enemy of America and its obsequious British satellite state.

Syria benefited considerably from the eventual overthrow of Saddam Hussain following the second Gulf War, since a dangerous rival of the Assad dynasty was eliminated, though President Bashar Al Assad (much to his credit) very chivalrously gave asylum to Saddam Hussain’s widow and daughters in Damascus.

The new, Shia led, Iraqi government enjoys excellent relations with Syria, based on a common front against Sunni extremists, who are waging horrific terrorist wars against both the Syrian and Iraqi states, neither of which, it must be said, appears reluctant to retaliate with all the force at its disposal (in the case of the Iraqis, thoughtfully provided by the Americans, who are apparently on the side of the Shia in Iraq but of the Sunni in Syria, without any apparent discernment of the problematic nature of their engagement in sectarian politics that outsiders to the region can scarcely understand).

Given the contradictory positions taken with regard to Syria and Iraq, Anglo-American involvement in the region does not seem to be the result of a decision to take sides for some Machiavellian reason of grand strategy in the sectarian disputes that afflict the Muslim world, and are as difficult to understand to us as Protestant and Catholic sectarianism in Northern Ireland would be to the average Baghdadi or Damascene (who, it must be said, probably both have other things to worry about these days than the decisions of the Parades Commission, such as how to do the shopping without being blown up by a lorry bomb or shot by a sniper).

Nor, on this occasion, is British policy towards Syria wholly determined by the usual suspects. It is true that post-Suez (and arguably post-1945) the default foreign policy position of the British establishment has been to find out what the Americans want and then do it, in order to maintain the imaginary “special relationship” with the U.S.A., which the Americans regard as occasionally useful, when the fig-leaf of a coalition is required to give legitimacy to a war, sometimes annoying, much like the slobbering of a fawning dog on its master’s shoes, but never to be taken seriously, let alone reciprocated.

Equally, since the Arab-Israeli war of 1967, if not before, the default approach to foreign policy of the American political class (with some honourable exceptions, such as President Nixon, at least sporadically, and President Carter, more consistently) is to take their instructions from AIPAC, the all too influential America-Israel Public Affairs Committee, which has more or less set American foreign policy in the Middle East for almost five decades, in the interests of Israel, not America.

On this occasion, however, there is little evidence that President Obama really wants to intervene in Syria after America’s experience in Iraq, and equally little evidence that the Israelis would prefer a Salafist regime in Syria to the Ba’athist regime, which is pro-Palestinian and anti-Zionist, but, unlike the crazed fundamentalists who oppose President Assad, is also a rational actor, well aware of the risks of confrontation with Israel at a time of weakness and division in the Arab world (a state of affairs that has, it must be said, prevailed somewhat consistently since 1948 for various reasons).

On the contrary, this time our prime minister and the French President, François Hollande, are egging the Americans on to an intervention that the more prudent and cautious President Obama appears to view with justified apprehension.

The real explanation for the proposed joint Franco-British attack on Syria (shades of Suez, 1956!) is, I believe, the continuing delusion of the British political class that the British state is still a great power.

More than half a century ago, U.S. Secretary of State Dean Acheson said: “Great Britain has lost an empire and has not yet found a role.”  Fifty-one years on, those words still ring true.

At first, our elite’s narcotic of choice for the loss of empire (the wholly predictable result of waging two world wars for doubtful ends) was the absurd Commonwealth, whose members, in the memorable words of Mr Enoch Powell, have nothing in common and no wealth.

Then came the so-called “special relationship” with an imaginary friend, which I have already discussed.

Yet another opiate of our establishment is the fond belief that we can (and should) “punch above our weight”, closely linked to which is an obsession with keeping “our seat at the top table” (also known as denying reality).

 

Yalta

 

Such wishful thinking certainly goes back to the time of the Yalta conference in 1945, when Churchill wholly succeeded in convincing himself, partially succeeded in convincing Stalin, but largely failed to convince Roosevelt that Great Britain was somehow on a par with the U.S.S.R. and the U. S. A., by reason of our huge war effort, only sustained, it must be admitted, with American help.

No-one believed that for long. The political weakness of post-1945 Great Britain results from relative economic decline.  Despite our still powerful armed forces, just how little clout we had on the world stage became clear to all but the most self-deluding after the Suez debacle of 1956 (interestingly, a joint Franco-British attempt to project our declining power into the Arab world: be warned, history has a habit of repeating itself!)

Wars are very expensive, and countries with shaky economies cannot wage them for long, however brave and well-trained their soldiers, sailors and airmen might be. The poor equipment with which our armed forces have had to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan is tangible proof of that. What is more, wars usually are not over by Christmas, as the generation of 1914 learned to its cost. They go on, and on, and on, especially (it would seem) in the Middle East and cost more, and more and more.

The reality of modern Britain is that we are a medium sized European power that no longer has a world role, or responsibilities that extend beyond the shores of our islands. We have plenty of problems of our own to be getting on with, before we meddle in Syria’s affairs, or anyone else’s.

It is a wicked dereliction of duty for a prime minister whose government lost control over large parts of its capital city (and many other towns and cities besides) only two years ago to posture on the world stage. He would do better to put his own house in order, and protect British soldiers from fundamentalist fanatics and murderers on the streets of Woolwich than meddle with the Arab street, but so monstrously vain, complacent, out of touch and short-termist is this posh boy who doesn’t known the price of a pint of milk that he prefers to strut his little hour than do anything about matters that he really could influence, if only he wanted to.

Instead of the insane adventurism of David Cameron and William Hague, all true patriots should sing along with John Lennon, who advocated a much better foreign policy for our country. All we are saying is give peace a chance!

 

Bookmark the permalink.

19 Comments

  1. Best article I have read so far. I think that you are right in that our ‘posh boys’ really can’t bear to face the fact that Britain is no longer the power we once were, & that therefore they can’t be important on the world stage. Thus the reason they like to be in the EU.
    However, I think there may be more behind this curious rush to go to war. If & when it fails, they will perhaps say ‘We were only following orders!’

  2. John Charmley began his book about Churchill, The End of Glory, by saying that he had no heirs since his leadership was based on the fantasy that Britain was still a world power by 1945.

    Churchill may not have heirs but he has plenty of opportunistic followers who pose as world statesmen directing mighty armies when they get power. Cameron and Hague are the latest.

    People say that since public opinion is against messing about in Syria their obvious wish to send a gunboat must be based on principle rather than votes. Not a bit of it. Once action is launched there is a tendency for the country to fall back into a bit of chest puffing about our great role in the world and imagining it continues.

    The politicians become ‘war leaders’ and must be supported.

  3. Considering David Cameron’s Britain does not even control its own capital, due to the sheer numbers of immigrants and some areas of it being under Sharia Law , he is deluded about us policing the world !

  4. This is a first-class article. The leaders of our nation hang on to the shirttails of America as if we are the 51st state of the USA: They are traitors and their hands are covered in blood! Why should the leaders of our nation drag its heels with the Zionist militaristic elite? My thoughts are simple. The Zionists silent constitution: WAR IS PEACE!
    I think I am right in saying even Harold Wilson kept us out of the Vietnam War.
    Foreign wars in far off lands have nothing to do with this Nation. We have seen the loss of 444 lives in Afghanistan and countless of our good young British military volunteers severely injured.
    How many days of peace in the Middle East since Palestine became Israel oops?
    Cameron will risk a General Election if he intervenes in this latest blood bath in the Middle East. However, I have no doubt, where Cameron’s true devotion lies.
    Nationalists never get the credit they deserve on these issues. We are not pacifists but we are certainly not internationalist warmongers who want to rule the world. We want sanity and our Country run by its people not by the Zionist warriors.
    Nationalism is Peace.

  5. Johnny draws attention to a crucial aspect of British nationalism which is often not clearly spelled out.

    There are two varieties of nationalism often dubbed in political theory ‘integral nationalism’ and ‘risorgimento nationalism’.

    The former means let’s go round forming empires and dominating others. The latter refers to the Italian movement for self-determination during the 19th century.

    British nationalism is clearly of the second variety. Which of us ever calls for other peoples’ homelands to be taken over and controlled by the British people? We simply want to control ours!

    Unsurprisingly, the mainstream media chooses to constantly suggest that we are supremacists. Crude and dishonest but hitherto rather effective.

  6. Today 29/8/2013 awful things are happening in our Parliament. David Cameron is twisting and turning in an attempt to get Britain to take military action against one side in the Syrian conflict. For the purpose of clarity may I state ; A British Democratic Party Government would not attack or invade or hurt Syria in any way. I use the word Government because the purpose of our party is to govern Britain, eventually. Our policy states; ‘ We do not want Britain to carry out the role of the world’s policeman. Our service personel must not be involved in foreign wars in which we have no vital interests at stake’. Also ‘ We have no animosity toward any state or people and we would endeavour to maintain peaceful relations with all. However, we would defend ourselves with vigour and determination.

  7. The Patriotic Nationalist movement in this country find it ironic, considering our misrepresentation in the media, that we are in favour of peace and the party’s of the Liblabcon believe in perpetual warfare ! ! !

  8. With a large majority against Miliband’s motion and a slender majority of 13 against Cameron, has the House of commons had an outbreak of common sense ? ? ? The worry is Cameron still has the power to order missile strikes but is extremely unlikely to do so ! Maybe now he will deal with Britain’s biggest problem. Not only is immigration continuing but is actually up, according to the latest figures. Also many decent British people are continuing to flee these shores in despair at the state of our country under the pact of disaster that is the LIBLABCON. In an act of hope join the BRITISH DEMOCRATIC PARTY TODAY.

  9. The UK can’t afford another war look at the money thrown way in places like Iraq. Muslims even argue and kill one another note here Sunnis and Shia Muslims. The UK has a 60-70 billion deficit a year. In June the government started to implement a policy of reducing the UKs regular army from 102,000 to 82,000 with 4,500 job loses straight away.

  10. Well one sure way of stopping the political class (who get well paid off as Blair did!) is to tell these right honourable and noble, and don’t forget moral masters, is if you want war, go ahead, fill your boots as long as you lead the charge. And as for the armchair warmongers! do the same if you say you cant, then send your kids and pay for it by sending all your money, sell your house that should get some cash. Take Tony blair for example, this was reported in the Telegraph, (Mr Blair is paid in the region of £3 million a year to advise both JP Morgan, the US investment bank, and also Zurich International, the global insurer based in Switzerland. On top of that he runs his own consultancy firm – Tony Blair Associates – which advises the oil and gas rich governments of Kuwait and Kazakhstan.
    It is a confusing mix of business, politics and philanthropy that is administered by a complex system of companies, operating out of plush offices in Grosvenor Square in Mayfair in central London.
    There are two parallel companies both with similar structures. One is called Windrush Ventures and another is called Firerush Ventures.) Do you think he would risk being at the front line? or any other of the political class of perverts and weirdoes.

  11. Unfortunately, even though there was a brief outbreak of sanity among some of our MPs, the American president still seems quite determined to bomb Syria even without us. This whole sorry middle east situation is only going to be made worse by more killing, and that is always what bombing does. More innocent civilians will be killed and maimed as the US rains down missiles, however well targeted. This problem can only be helped by negotiation, and peace hasn’t followed any of the US military interventions in the middle east so far. Iraq is now a basket case, as is Afghanistan. Killings by the hundred, every single day, but little noise from the media about all that. They are determined to paint Assad as another Hitler though. Their rhetoric is designed to fire up passions and make people morally outraged, but we have been here before and remember how we were lied to over Iraq in just the same way. Amazingly I find myself in agreement with the Russians, who advocate waiting for proof and evidence about what was used and who used it, and then getting a United Nations mandate for any action deemed appropriate. My hope now is that the US congress will also see sense and vote against knee jerk military strikes.

  12. Frightened to ask Parliament again to authorise direct action, Cameron is still plotting ! He has pledged to focus the Government’s efforts on supplying ‘ humanitarian aid ‘ to strict Islamic Fanatics fighting their more moderate Government in Syria. However, Downing st. has refused to rule out ARMING THE REBELS with military hardware from Britain. Cameron clearly wants REGIME CHANGE, with the overthrow of Bashar Assad’s regime and it’s replacement with hard line Muslim fanatics ! WHY ?

    • It’s known as the Oded Yinon Plan.
      Part of the US ‘PNAC’- Program for the new American century.
      Further details from ‘Land destroyer’. Pepe Escobar and many others detailed the economic aspects of ‘Pipelinistan’ in such as ‘Global research’ ‘Information clearing house’ and ‘zero hedge’ also in videos at ‘the Corbett report.’
      Hope that helps.

  13.  
    An excellent article, Adrian. Following the astounding defiance shown at the House of Commons last week, where by a majority of lucky thirteen votes the war-plans of the puppet-regime in place at Westminster, beholden to globalist, anti-British interests as they are, were dashed, The question now is: What comes next ?

    Expect the worst : according to the insider views of  the former leading member of President Ronald Reagan’s U.S. Treasury team, Paul Craig Roberts,  the present U.S. Administration, like its predecessors,  is utterly corrupt and quite insane, and  is leading the U.S.A. and the world with it towards complete financial bankruptcy, and  towards a brutal  police-state within the U.S.A. itself,  whilst busy readying itself  to launch  nuclear war against any state or combination of states that would oppose the ambitions of the United States of America for  world-hegemony. So, Paul Craig Roberts, former member of President Reagan’s government, in his latest blog. 

    As for poor Palestine: that is the thrice promised land. In 1915,Colonel T.E. Lawrence (of Arabia), acting in accord with the then wishes of the British authorities promised Palestine to the Arabs; in 1916 by the British -French  Sykes-Picot agreement, Palestine was promised to Great Britain; and then by another turn of events, in 1917 Palestine was assigned by the British government’s Balfour Declaration to the Jews as their Homeland..

    • It is essential to the warmongers that Iran be utterly destroyed by Purim 2014 -March and the following Pesarch be celebrated. Therefore there is little time left for the nuking of Iran.
      So this must start around Sept/ Oct 2013.

  14. Very soon the US will attack Syria under its false-flag ‘gassing’ lie.
    Then, within four days of this massive, conventional attack, it will attack Iran in a multiple nuclear assault on some pretext or other.
    Meanwhile Israel will attack un-defended Lebanon-again, with horrendous casualties among innocent men, women and children.
    How do I know this? Well, same as i predicted the attack and outcome of US attack on Iraq/ Libya- the intended result- devided broken nations in chaos.
    How? Well, unlike many ‘nationalists’ I took the trouble to find out. and I found such as ‘The Oded Yinon Plan’. which neatly sets out Israels truly demonic sceme for the ME. . I discovered PNAC- official US/ Israeli/ Globalist plan for war forever. I looked at who controls the media, the banks, the American government- Not- as you may suspect- Esquimos, nor Islamists, but AIPAC. Then I investigated who is behind the forced immigration among- not just Britain, but within all Eurtopean-race countries and found ‘Barbera learner Spectre youtube’ among others. I looked up just who is promoting Homosexual rights and marriage’ and guess what- well guess who- what minority in US, by their own figures, supports homosexual marriage 86% against the white support of only 15%..
    Well, if you havent got the message by now, I suggest you ask your mom whether you should be allowed to go out and play alone. .

  15. From Thierry Maysan’s website:
    Evidence that the terrorists in Syria abducted assad supporters children ond then gassed them.

    If this is true then it is the most horrific and damning evidence against AIPAC’s/ Obama’s push for war. Please read and circulat to everyone.
    This could stop the war and bring down the warmongers.

    http://www.voltairenet.org/article180130.html

  16. Peadar Ó'Colmáin

    Well done Adrian Davies. That’s possibly the best and most frank article I have read about the current situation. I believe that it is monstrous that Obama would plan another massacre in the Middle East. He has shown the world that he is no diffferent to the Bushes et al. I’m an Irish nationalist myself but I wish your party every success. This war can be stopped if enough people know that this is not about chemical weapons but a broader plan to isolate Iran in preparation for the big, big massacre. – and all for Israel.

  17. ( Party Member ) The Syrians who support their President all appear to be very civilised to me. They, rare in the Arab world, actually believe women should be educated ! They also believe in religious toleration. 10% of Syrians are Christian and they all support their President. The rebels are killing Christians and burning Churches. Cameron wants regime change, with power given to a group of maniacs who will turn Syria into a failed state.

Leave a Reply

Your e-mail address will not be published. Required fields are marked *