Once again, a report about the use of Weapons of Mass Destruction is being used to justify an intervention. We are always opposed to the use of any weapons on civilians, but as was the case with the last reports of an alleged attack, there is no conclusive proof that the attack came from the Syrian government.
Undaunted by the lack of evidence, US Secretary of State John Kerry has nevertheless declared that the US and its NATO allies will strike Syria. Any intervention by an new “coalition of the willing” will be against international law and must be opposed.
Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird has said that Canada will be in “lock-step” with its NATO allies. Canadian officials are currently meeting with counterparts from France, the UK and the US to devise strategies for an intervention.
Regardless of what one thinks of either the Syrian government or of the opposition forces, we know from recent experience that:
– NATO and its allies have and will continue to lie about the use of Weapons of Mass Destruction to justify “humanitarian” intervention.
– NATO-led attacks, justified as a “responsibility to protect” (R2P) civilians, have resulted in tens of thousands of civilian deaths. The death toll from military attacks in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya can be counted in the hundreds of thousands.
– The geopolitical calculations of the NATO powers, and not the interests of ordinary people, are always the main considerations for any intervention.
During the Vietnam War, US officials described a situation where it became necessary to “destroy the village in order to save it.” As with all the recent evocations of R2P, it appears that the goal of NATO is to bomb civilians in order to save them. We must, therefore, stand in opposition to the actions of the aggressor states in NATO and call on the government of Canada to keep its hands off Syria.