Introduction – June 1, 2012
As we’ve already pointed out, there still many unanswered questions about who was behind the Houla killings. Despite having little hard evidence to support their accusations, the West has repeatedly blamed Syria for the atrocity.
Although Syria would gain nothing from the massacre, the Western corporate media has echoed those claims incessantly; again with little hard evidence in support.
Despite there being grounds to question the authenticity of the those claims against the Syrian government, the corporate media is treating Assad’s guilt almost as an established fact.
Are these repeated accusations being used to pave the way for Western military intervention in Syria on humanitarian grounds?
The public wouldn’t accept Western military intervention in Syria, at least not without justification. Are these crimes being blamed on Syria to rationalize a Western military operation to resolve a “humanitarian crisis”?
U.S. Hints At Military Intervention in Syria
Ruth Sherlock & Richard Spencer – Daily Telegraph June 1, 2012
The United States has raised the possibility of intervening in Syria without United Nations approval and accused Russia of helping push Syria into civil war.
Hillary Clinton, the U.S. secretary of state, bluntly criticized Russia’s continued backing for President Bashar Assad’s regime Thursday. This support was illustrated Thursday night by the disclosure that a Russian cargo ship carrying weapons had docked in Syria on Saturday, one day after the massacre in Houla that claimed at least 108 civilian lives.
Addressing students in Den-mark, Clinton urged Russia to use its influence on Assad to curb the fighting. “The Syrians are not going to listen to us. They will listen – maybe – to the Russians, so we have to keep pushing them,” she said.
Russian officials, added Clinton, “are telling me they don’t want to see a civil war. I have been telling them their policy is going help to contribute to a civil war.”
Western governments believe that diplomatic cover afforded by the Kremlin has emboldened Assad and encouraged him to resist pressure to negotiate a settlement of the conflict.
Earlier, Susan Rice, the American ambassador to the UN, said that Russia’s veto at the Security Council would not necessarily prevent inter-national action. If the violence worsened and the peace plan proposed by Kofi Annan, the former UN secretary-general, made no progress, some countries would consider whether to bypass Russian and Chinese opposition in the UN.
“Members of this council and members of the international community are [then] left with the option only of having to consider whether they’re pre-pared to take actions outside of the Annan plan and the authority of this Council,” said Rice.
Leaders of the Free Syrian Army, the rebel movement,
issued a statement giving the regime until today to obey the Annan plan, or they would formally abandon the ceasefire.
But Clinton noted the obstacles to any Western military intervention, starting with the probable Russian and Chinese vetoes that would prevent any action from having UN support.
“We’re nowhere near putting together any type of coalition other than to alleviate the suffering,” she said. “We have very strong opposition from Russia and China – but it’s primarily from Russia – and that makes it harder to put together an international coalition.”
There are growing fears that Syria risks becoming a “failed state” comparable to Iraq during the worst days of its conflict, when different sects battled for power and extremist Islamist groups allied to al-Qaida also rose to the surface.
Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary-general, spelled out the dangers, saying: “The massacre of civilians of the sort seen last weekend could plunge Syria into a catastrophic civil war – a civil war from which the country would never recover.”
The UN has deployed 290 observers to monitor a cease-fire called for by the Annan plan. Some countries want more observers to be sent, noting that violence falls wherever they are deployed.