Russia and China say any decision on a transition of power in Syria should only be made by the Syrian people.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi announced the stances of their countries after a meeting on the situation in Syria at the United Nations office in Geneva on Saturday.
Syria has been experiencing unrest since mid-March 2011. Many people, including security forces, have been killed in the turmoil.
Press TV has conducted an interview with Dr. Webster Griffith Tarpley, an author and historian from Washington, to further discuss the issue. The following is a rough transcription of the interview.
Looking at the rights record of the participants of the meeting in Geneva, particularly that of the United States, it’s somehow hard to believe that their only concern is of human rights. Can you tell us how a regime change in Syria may benefit every participant in that conference?
The current US policy under the Obama administration with Hillary Clinton in the State Department aims at the destruction of all sovereign states on this planet. It’s really rolling the world situation back to the time before the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 which established the regime of modern independent sovereign states.
The desperation of the US and the British comes from their financial bankruptcy, and what they’ve got to do is increase the rate of exploitation and looting and sacking of the entire world economy. In the course of this, they find that any national government is an intolerable obstacle. It gets in their way.
It can say no, like Mubarak said no to them on numerous occasions and Gaddafi said no most of the time, so they decided to smash up these countries. But notice their goal is not just regime change: it’s now microstates; “ministates”, to use the terms of Zbigniew Brzezinski; “partition”, the favorite term of George Soros; balkanization, failed states, rump states, warlords - warlords of the type that we see for example in Libya.
This is the goal, to have a situation where the International Monetary Fund and NATO rule the world from above but then on the ground you’ve got a kind of crazy court of petty, squabbling, impotent little entities that could never resist Exxon Mobile or JP Morgan Chase or Halliburton or anything of the kind, something, again, like Libya today.
That’s where they’re headed to this. It would be for them to break up Syria, to detach the Kurdish part, to detach parts that would be claimed by Turkey, to perhaps start the Lebanese civil war again, perhaps there would be a continuous civil war in Syria, perhaps Israel will start helping itself to various tracts of territory, and so on down the line. So that’s where this is going. It’s very sinister.
Taking a look at the situation on the ground, for how long do you think Assad and the Assad administration in general will be able to absorb such huge pressure and stay in power?
I think indefinitely. I think for a very long time. Assad’s holding power may turn out to be greater than the holding power of the coalition that is against them. This of course depends on Russia and China maintaining their current blocking position in the Security Council.
Hillary Clinton, after that tirade, that outburst that we just heard, her hysterical plan is to go back to the Security Council and to try once again to get a Chapter 7 resolution through the Security Council, and that would include draconian economic sanctions and it will eventually lead them to an armed attack, a no-fly zone - meaning bombing, humanitarian corridors, buffers zones and so forth. That will be a massive attack on Syria.
There is no indication that Russia will go along. Lavrov, leading the proceedings today, said the important thing is that nothing has been imposed. When we look at this empty formula that they’ve come up with, it’s a kind of face-saving piece of rhetoric or boilerplate for all of them.
On the one side, Assad and his government have said we will not accept a solution dictated by foreigners; that’s sound policy.
Then we have the Syrian National Council, always helpful in this way, they say they will never negotiate with Assad because Assad has blood on his hands.
We’re finding out right now thanks to the Frankfurter Allgemeine
in Germany, the big conservative paper in Frankfurt, that it was the Free Syrian Army that carried out the Houla massacre not Assad, not the Syrian army, but rather these bloody NATO death squads that have been brought in which Hillary Clinton is supporting - and Hague and Fabius and the rest of these people. Indeed, Kofi Annan, the hypocrite, is nothing but a front man for essentially these death squads.
There is talk of a coalition government, and you pointed to it briefly, but how likely will this coalition government be formed and just how much will Assad agree to it?
There have been elections. That’s another one of these sort of Orwellian features in these proceedings. There have just been elections in Syria in which more than 50 percent, I’m not sure exactly how many but by all indications more than half of the people who were registered to vote have voted, and there were opposition figures.
Not everyone elected in those elections was from the Ba’ath Party. Of course, the Syrian National Council, the group of adventurers who like to live in expensive hotels and make pronunciations to the four points of the compass, they always say they won’t negotiate. Why would they? They’ve been living high on the hog the way it is.
There have been elections where you didn’t have to be a member of the Ba’ath Party. Full elections have been held but Kofi Annan said ‘those are not good enough, that’s not what we mean.’
Well, what do you mean then given the fact that the Syrian Free Army, the Syrian National Council said they won’t participate in elections? They are the ones who are intractable and the guilt of the crisis goes to them. I think Assad can hold out for quite a while.