You are hereBlogs / Stephen Lendman's blog / Washington Criticizes Syrian Self-Defense

Washington Criticizes Syrian Self-Defense


By Stephen Lendman - Posted on 02 June 2013

 

Washington Criticizes Syrian Self-Defense

 

by Stephen Lendman

 

Seventeenth century philosopher/political theorist/jurist Hugo Grotius perhaps helped inspire international law. In 1625, his "On The Law of War and Peace" said "Most Men assign three Just Causes of War, Defense, the Recovery of what's our own, and Punishment."

 

War must be waged rightly to be just, he said. It must either  respond to "wrongs not yet committed, or to wrongs already done." He called self-defense justifiable.

 

Under international law, it's a fundamental right. It's inviolable. The UN Charter affirms it. Chapter VII, Article 51 states:

 

"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security." 

 

"Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security."

 

America spurns international, constitutional and US statute laws. Do as we say, not as we do, is policy.

 

Syria's Washington's war. It was planned years ago. It's lawless premeditated aggression. Proxy foot soldiers wage it. They're enlisted death squads. They're recruited from many regional and more distant countries. They invaded. There's nothing "civil" about ongoing conflict.

 

Assad defends Syrian sovereignty best he can. He's obligated to do so. If not him, who will? He's vilified for doing his job. Washington wants him denied the right. It wants him defenseless.

 

The New York Times supports longstanding US imperial priorities. Doing so supports wrong over right. It ignores fundamental rule of law principles. It violates journalistic ethics. They require truth and full disclosure.

 

On May 31, The Times headlined "Kerry Castigates Russia Over Syria-Bound Missiles." 

 

He claimed supplying them "threaten(s) to disrupt efforts to negotiate a political settlement and could destabilize the region." He hard imagining he said so with a straight face.

 

America abhors diplomacy. It prioritizes violence, conflict, subversion, destabilization, conquest and unchallenged dominance. Times editors, columnists and correspondents don't explain.

 

Russia confirmed its S-300 anti-aircraft missile sale. Other weapons systems are supplied. Contracts were agreed on earlier. The Times said doing so "add(s) a dangerous new dimension to the 'civil' war in Syria."

 

Kerry claims S-300s and other defensive systems threaten Israel. Saying so turns truth on its head. Israel and Washington partner in regional wars. They're allied against Syria. 

 

Both countries actively aid and abet extremist death squad fighters. They're supplied weapons and other military-related help. Doing so is lawless. NATO partners and rogue Arab state allies operate the same way.

 

Kerry wants Syria unable to resist. "Whether it’s an old (Russian) contract or not, it has a profoundly negative impact on the balance of interests and the stability of the region, and it does put Israel at risk," he claims.

 

"It is not, in our judgment, responsible because of the size of the weapon, the nature of the weapon and what it does to the region in terms of Israel’s security."

 

He omitted saying they're for defense, not offense. Weapons and munitions supplied Western-enlisted death squads further lawless aggression. The Times didn't explain. Managed news misinformation excludes doing so.

 

Washington Post editors operate the same way. They prioritize war on Syria, not peaceful conflict resolution. Numerous editorials say so. Previous articles discussed them.

 

On May 29, WaPo headlined "Russia sends arms to Syria as it tries to reassert its role in region," saying:

 

"The Syrian army’s March weapons request to its Russian supplier was the stuff of everyday battles in a long and grueling conflict." ­

 

"Twenty-thousand Kalashnikov assault rifles and 20 million rounds of ammunition. Machine guns. Grenade launchers and grenades. Sniper rifles with night-vision sights."

 

"The Syrian army general asked for a price quote 'in the shortest possible time.' He closed with kind regards to Rosoboronexport, Russia’s state arms exporter."

 

Arms include defensive S-300 missiles. Russia confirmed the sale. Since conflict began in early 2011, Washington, key NATO partners, and rogue Arab state allies supplied anti-Assad elements with weapons and munitions. 

 

They pour in regularly. They plan greater amounts ahead. Doing so escalates conflict. Resolving it is nowhere in sight.

 

According to WaPo, "no outside force has been as consistent in its involvement in Syria as Russia."

 

Its support pales by comparison with Western and allied regime partners. WaPo didn't explain. It claims Russia remains committed to providing "indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity" of arms shipments.

 

It said Moscow wants to reassert its regional presence. It has every right to do so. Vital interests are at stake. US forces infest the region. They prioritize violence, conflict and instability. They prevent peace. 

 

Moscow has just cause for concern. Supporting Syrian sovereignty helps its own. Washington surrounds Russia with military bases. They're provocative. 

 

So-called US defensive missiles and related radar installations are positioned near its borders. They're for offense, not defense. America operates this way. 

 

Russia knows it's targeted. So does China. Eliminating sovereign allies leaves them more vulnerable. Together they represent a vital stand against US imperial intentions.

 

WaPo editors are consistently critical. They call blocking Security Council war resolutions irresponsible. 

 

They claim opposing foreign intervention is reckless. Hawkish editors think this way. So do supportive columnists, correspondents and contributors.

 

They blame President Vladimir Putin for waging Cold War politics. Failure to roll over for America is called hostile. So is waging peace, not war.

 

Wall Street Journal editors are consistently hawkish. On May 31, they headlined "Assad on the March."

 

He "has a new swagger," they said. He's routing insurgent invaders "thanks to arms from Russia and troops and weapons from Iran and Hezbollah."

 

"The West is slowly losing in Syria to this axis of Mideast extremism, and Americans need to understand the potential consequences."

 

Journal editors and other media scoundrels support Washington rules. They back America's imperium. They feature lawless wars. 

 

They're waged against independent countries. They want them left  defenseless. They want them unable to resist. They're supposed to lose, not win. How Syria's survival struggle turns out remains to be seen.

 

"You almost have to admire the brazenness of Russian diplomacy," said Journal editors. They call supplying defensive weapons against offensive ones given Western-enlisted death squads hypocrisy.

 

They want Syria unable to resist. Countering Western/Israeli aggression can't be tolerated. Assad's ability to do so marks "another triumph for President Obama's diplomatic 'reset' with Russia."

 

It exists in name only. In 2009, Obama promised a "fresh start." Cold War politics never changed. CIA operatives infest Russia. They operate under diplomatic cover. At times, they're caught red-handed.

 

US funding supports internal opposition elements. America does so globally. Russia and China are prime targets. So are Iran and other independent states.

 

Moscow prefers friendly relations with America. Good faith offers are made. Washington's confrontational policies persist. So does covert war. 

 

It's much like the bad old days. Everything changed but stayed the same. It's standard US practice. It wants things one-way. Sovereign independence isn't tolerated.

 

Journal editors want tougher US policy. They abhor rule of law principles. They suppress truth and full disclosure. They support war. 

 

They're dismissive about further death, destruction and human misery. Imperial priorities alone matter. Scoundrel editors thinks this way. They betray their readers in the process. Why they put up with it they'll have to explain.

 

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. 

 

His new book is titled "Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity."

 

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanII.html

 

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com. 

 

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

 

It airs Fridays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

 

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour 

 

http://www.dailycensored.com/washington-criticizes-syrian-self-defense/

Tags

Informed Activist

Support WarIsACrime



Donate.








Tweet your Congress critters here.


Advertise on this site!




Facebook      Twitter





Our Stores:























Movie Memorabilia.



The log-in box below is only for bloggers. Nobody else will be able to log in because we have not figured out how to stop voluminous spam ruining the site. If you would like us to have the resources to figure that out please donate. If you would like to receive occasional emails please sign up. If you would like to be a blogger here please send your resume.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.