диссертация (1169605), страница 21
Текст из файла (страница 21)
This fits the pattern of terrorism and fear that the anti-governmentforces have been carrying out for the past few years, as well as showing that they190Russia releases key findings on chemical attack near Aleppo indicating similarity with rebel-made weapons.Autonomous Non-Profit Organization TV-Novosti, 4 Sept. 2013. Web. 29 January 2018.http://rt.com/news/chemical-aleppo-findings-russia-417/.191UN notes 'concrete suspicions' that Syrian rebels used chemical weapons. Autonomous Non-Profit OrganizationTV-Novosti, 6 May 2013.
Web. 29 January 2018. http://rt.com/news/un-syria-rebels-chemical-weapons-854/.192UN to get Syria evidence - Russia. BBC, 18 Sept. 2013. Web. 29 January 2018. http://www.bbc.com/news/worldmiddle-east-24140475.193Stea C. Syria: UN Mission Report Confirms that Opposition Rebels Used Chemical Weapons against CiviliansandGovernmentForces.GlobalResearch.ca,31Dec.2013.Web.29January2018.http://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-un-mission-report-confirms-that-opposition-rebels-used-chemical-weaponsagainst-civilians-and-government-forces/5363139.84had begun normalizing the use of such dangerous weapons as part of their overallstrategy.
Additionally, a study released by MIT found that it would have beenimpossible for the Syrian military to have used chemical weapons that day, judgingby the battle lines, their positions, and the short range of the rockets used 194.What has thus been established is that the anti-government insurgentsexpanded their terrorist operations and used chemical weapons against the SyrianArab Army and civilians during the course of the conflict. The 21 August Ghoutachemical weapons attack was falsely blamed on the Syrian government by WesternNGOs and media sources in order to advance the case for a HumanitarianIntervention and an invocation of the “Responsibility to Protect” doctrine. The USargued that the Syrian government had committed an “egregious crime againsthumanity” by using chemical weapons and that it must therefore be punished.From this logic, it then started talking about militarily disciplining Syria for usingchemical weapons in the first place, which would have gone against aninternational agreement prohibiting their use.
However, the role of America as the“world cop” and the enforcer of international law was not as attractive of anargument as “Humanitarian Intervention/Responsibility to Protect”.The scenario unfolded differently, however, as over 90% of Americans wereagainst a conventional war in Syria under such pretexts 195. Additionally, the USwas not able to secure the support of its traditional British allies in carrying out ajoint strike against Syria, with the French standing as the only major Americanpartners in favor of a military intervention196. The reaction of the American publicand the international community largely showed that the fervour for “HumanitarianIntervention/Responsibility to Protect” had cooled after the War on Libya and thatmany people likely realized that they were being duped.194MIT study of Ghouta chemical attack challenges US intelligence.
Autonomous Non-Profit Organization TVNovosti, 19 Jan. 2014. Web. 29 January 2018. http://rt.com/news/study-challenges-syria-chemical-attack-681/.195Wroughton L. As Syria war escalates, Americans cool to U.S. intervention: Reuters/Ipsos poll. Reuters. ThomsonReuters, 24 Aug.
2013. Web. 25 January 2018. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/25/us-syria-crisis-usa-pollidUSBRE97O00E20130825.196Barzegar K. France emerges as key U.S. ally against Syria. USA TODAY, 2 Sept. 2013. Web. 29 January 2018.http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/09/02/france-syria-strikes/2754931/.85Russia had been against any type of external intervention in Syria’s domesticcrisis since it began in early 2011, and its stance was no different during the UScalls for war in September 2013. Moscow immediately cast doubts on Westernclaims that it was the Syrian government that used chemical weapons, withForeign Minister Sergei Lavrov even suggesting that it was a “provocation plannedin advance” by the terrorists 197.
At this time, Russia was already well aware of theanti-government forces’ use of chemical weapons in March, so it is reasonable thatMoscow would immediately suspect them of repeating that crime in August.On a larger level, Russia has a strong reason for why it is against regimechange in Syria, namely that is always against outside-supported regime change inany country, no matter where it is located or what the circumstances are 198. This isbecause Russia does not trust the US intentions and it feels that democracy andstability are not brought about via destabilization and war. Moscow’s reasoningalso perfectly coincides with its heralding of state sovereignty as an importantelement of international relations, which was explicitly declared in an article thatPresident Putin authored in 2012 199.President Obama had earlier said that using chemical weapons during theSyrian conflict would be a “red line” that would warrant an official US response 200.This placed him in a precarious political position when it came to dealing with theGhouta incident.
He had already established the casus belli, should he choose tointervene, and it would be difficult for him to walk back his comment if hechanged his mind. Luckily, a gaffe by Secretary of State John Kerry would provide197Russia suggests Syria 'chemical attack' was 'planned provocation' by rebels. Autonomous Non-ProfitOrganization TV-Novosti, 22 Aug. 2013.
Web. 29 January 2018. http://rt.com/news/russia-syria-chemical-attack801/.198Yan H, Castillo M., Shoichet C., Brumfield B., Sterling J..Syria allies: Why Russia, Iran and China are standingbytheregime.CableNewsNetwork,30Aug.2013.Web.29January2018.http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/29/world/meast/syria-iran-china-russia-supporters/.199Putin V. Russia and the changing world.- RT Russian politics. Autonomous Non-Profit Organization TVNovosti, 27 Feb.
2012. Web. 29 January 2017. http://rt.com/politics/official-word/putin-russia-changing-world-263/.200Kessler G. President Obama and the 'red line' on Syria’s chemical weapons. The Washington Post, 6 Sept. 2013.Web. 29 January 2018. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2013/09/06/president-obama-andthe-red-line-on-syrias-chemical-weapons/.86the perfect window of opportunity for Russian diplomacy to avert the looming warin Syria201.John Kerry had spoken off the cuff and said that if Syria was willing tosurrender its existing chemical weapons stockpile to international control, then theUS would not have to engage in punitive military strikes against it.
Right aftersaying this, he dismissed it in his next breath as an impossible idea that wouldnever work, however, the proposal was not lost on S. Lavrov. Together with hisSyrian counterpart, both actors quickly seized on the gaffe as a brilliantbreakthrough that could stop America’s drive to war.The diplomatic wheels that were then set into motion continued to spin untila deal had been reached to dispose of all of Syria’s chemical weapons, a goalwhich was finally met on 23 June, 2014 202. As a result of the agreement, the USheld off on striking Syria and a repeat of the Libyan scenario was avoided.
Inhindsight, Kerry’s gaffe and Lavrov’s adroit use of it can be credited as savingSyria from a direct US military intervention.The Ghouta false flag chemical weapons attack is a pivotal moment not onlyin the War on Syria, but also in international politics as a whole. In the context ofthe US regime change plans against Syria, it shows the lengths that the US couldgo to pursue regime change across the world and how it aimed at transitioningfrom an unconventional war to a direct military intervention. Ghouta wasmonumental in the fact that it demonstrated the limits of American unipolarity.
Ofcourse, the US could theoretically have launched a war against Syria or performeddrone strikes regardless of Russian diplomatic resistance, but the fact is that itchose not to. This indicates that the US had reservations about what it can orcannot do in this situation, especially owing to the strong Russian opposition toany American attack. In a way, it can be theorized that “Humanitarian201Freedland J. John Kerry on Syria: how a gaffe could stop a war.
Guardian News and Media, 10 Sept. 2013. Web.29 January 2018. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/10/syria-gaffe-war-john-kerry.202Branigin W. Last of Syria's chemical weapons handed over for destruction, international body says. TheWashingtonPost,23June2014.Web.19January2018.http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/agency-last-of-syrias-chemical-weapons-handed-over-fordestruction/2014/06/23/4eb9a138-fad9-11e3-8176-f2c941cf35f1_story.html.87Intervention/Responsibility to Protect” wars can be warded off if a Great Poweractively resists them. One can thus see the outlines of an emerging multipolarworld in the aftermath of Ghouta and the recession of the unipolar moment in theUS voluntarily pulling itself back from the brink of war.The United States is not the only country in the regime change coalition thatendeavoured to justify war in Syria by the events in Ghouta.
A series ofconversations was leaked in March 2014 where the Turkish Foreign Minister andhigh-ranking military individuals conspired to stage an attack on the SuleymanShah Tomb203, a small sovereign piece of Turkish territory located inside of Syria.Thankfully, the Turkish conspiracy was exposed before it could happen. TheTurkish government immediately banned social media in the country in an effort tokill the story, but it was too late and news of it reached the world. In the recording,it was mentioned that then-Prime Minister Erdogan would see the attack as anopportunity for launching a war in Syria and that everything must remain secret.The participants also spoke about how the terrorist groups in Syria can bemanipulated into attacking the tomb in order to justify Turkey’s conventionalparticipation in the War on Syria.The entire incident proves some disturbing things. Firstly, it shows that keyplayers in a regime change coalition can take matters into their own hands andautonomously plan for war outside of the confines of their political patron’s will(i.e.
![](https://s.studizba.com/z.php?f=/templates/si/i/noavatar.png&w=100&h=100&t=1"){kind=avatar}
