UN boss position in line with US stance: Pundit

Press TV has conducted an interview with Eric Draitser, founder of stopimperialism.com from New York, on a recent comment by the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon against Russian airstrikes on Takfiri terrorists in Syria.

The following is a rough transcription of the interview.

Press TV: Quarrels upon these comments are coming at the time when the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has criticized Russia, saying that its airstrikes on Syria are counterproductive and have basically directly contributed to the breakdown of peace talks in Geneva. What do you make of that?

Draitser: Well, I think it speaks to the very clear and distinct difference between the position that Ban Ki-moon has and the position of somebody like Del Ponte.

Ban Ki-moon is ultimately the political public relations face of the United Nations, in other words, he answers to those powers who tend to dominate the United Nations in particular of course the United States.

This is why Ban Ki-moon really can never take a position publicly that is truly at odds with the United States, that really calls into question the US agenda or the US motivations.

On the other hand, of course those who are actually engaging in real fact-finding, those who understand the reality on the ground such as somebody like Del Ponte recognized that whatever problematic elements there are in regards to Russia’s engagement in Syria.

Leaving that aside, the actual results on the ground have been quite significant including not only the soon-to-be liberation of Aleppo but also the freeing up of certain corridors in the country, the corridor connecting Aleppo and Damascus, breaking the terrorists' supply lines particularly those stretching from Turkey into Syria and towards the Idlib province.

All of these very key strategic developments on the ground to a large extent are thanks to a combination of Russian airstrikes and of course the advancement of the Syrian Arab army with, it should be added, certain key Russian advisors, which we now know has been reported by Western and non-Western media, I mean, of course their Hezbollah allies and the various allies that are part of that coalition.

And so, what you are actually seeing is not so much a difference in perception of what’s happening on the ground but a difference in the political reality of the positions within the United Nations ultimately, sadly the UN answers to the United States to a large extent.

Press TV: So, then, Mr. Draitser, where does this leave the US when it comes to the fight against Daesh, because, let’s not forget, the US continues to expand its military budget to fight Daesh. It’s even speaking to its allies like Saudi Arabia and Bahrain and pondering over sending ground troops into Syria to fight Daesh. Then is the US not sincere in fighting the terrorist group?

Draitser: Well, of course they’re not sincere. I think we all know this that the defense intelligence agency memo of 2012, which really demonstrated that the US was perfectly aware of the development of what’s come to be noticed the Islamic State or Daesh.

They knew this was coming and they were hoping to be able to use this for the benefit of the so-called opposition in order to bring regime change, they’ve tried to use al-Nusra Front as so-called moderate rebels in order to destroy the Assad government, the legally recognized government of Syria.

There are a number of examples of just how disingenuous the United States has been in terms of the so-called war against ISIS, but it should be said that today what the United States is now doing is using the Islamic State, ISIS, Daesh as a pretext for furthering its campaign against the Syrian government.

We saw just in the last few weeks, the United States now controlling a very strategically important airbase inside of Syria allegedly in order to carry out a bombing mission against the Islamic State.

This is actually part of the broader agenda that the US has been pursuing that being the deconstruction or the carving up or the de facto partitioning of Syria along ethnic lines.

The neocons in Washington have been advocating this for now for quite some time. They’ve been writing op-eds in The New York Times, they’ve been testifying before Congress, they’ve been pushing this particular strategy and now they’re using the political reality on the ground in order to affect that strategy.

That has to do with the soon-to-be-liberation of Aleppo that has to do with the so-called High Negotiations Committee - the Saudi proxies - that were in Geneva. All of these things are connected.

And what they tell us is that the United States wants to find a solution that is amenable to its interest. It is not interested in peace for the sake of Syria. It is interested in a peace process that it can manage to its own beneficial outcomes. This is of course the height of cynicism and this is how the United States operates.

Press TV’s website can also be accessed at the following alternate addresses:

www.presstv.co.uk