| Editor's Note: The following article contains the
transcript from Iribarne Ephraim Chury's weekly interview of James
Petras, translated from Spanish into English by Axis of Logic. The
interview can be heard and the transcript read at Uruguay's Radio Centenario
in Spanish. In the interview, Petras provides new insight and clarity, not otherwise found in the fog of
confusion and contraditory reports on Syria in the corporate and alternative
media. - Axis of Logic
On the possible attack on Syria, "We are in a place of transition ... with popular pressure and Putin's initiative weighed in on the side for a political and diplomatic solution and on the other side we have the warmongers in the US government, such as the Mr. Kerry, the Zionists and the rest of the hawks, who are looking for a pretext to neutralize this pro-diplomatic wave, pro-reconciliation and attempt to solve the problem without going into war," explained the American sociologist James Petras in his column for analysis of the international situation at CX36 Radio Centenario, Montevideo, Uruguay, CX36 (*). Petras also said that he has to wonder if "this idea of disarming Syria form a part of a trajectory toward the solution to stop the war, or is it a mechanism to weaken to Syria before attacking them ... Step into Iraq with inspectors and disarmament and then return to a more aggressive attack with fewer consequences." What follows is the transcript of the analysis of James Petras from Monday 16 September 2013, which you can listen/download at Bits on the Run (20 minutes in Spanish).
Iribarne Ephraim Chury: As each Monday at this time we receive James Petras from New York. Good day Petras, welcome. James Petras: We are very well, trying to understand what is happening in different parts of the world. ECHI: Well, as in the previous editions I would like to begin with Syria, given recent events. JP:
On Syria we have here in the United States a few formal presentations
indicating that there are many possibilities to curb the diplomatic
process for a peaceful resolution. For example, the
question of the inspectors going to check the Syrian chemical weapons
is pending. The inspectors could be experts, but they can also have
affiliations and policy guidelines that can harm any measure taken by
the Syrian government. We have seen for example in Iraq, where some of
the inspectors were actually spies for the United States and when
they went to investigate the weapons, they also compiled information useful
for the later American attack and bombardment. Instead of serving as a
means of collecting information, they were investigators for the
imperialism to facilitate the air strikes when launched. Therefore, questions of how the inspection will take place and who the inspectors are will be critical. Obviously,
this means western countries are looking for inspectors who will act
in favor of their agenda and not simply to resolve the problem, but
rather to create the conditions for relaunching the military
aggression. This seems to me clear. The second are the
obstacles that the Foreign Ministries of the United States and France
are inserting; they want all the accounting of all the weapons in 60
places, in all the hidden locations, in a week. And they say that if they
don't meet within a week, they will nullify the agreement. Now, they could meet in 7, 8 or 9 days. But according to them, if they are not able to comply with in 7 days, everything indicates that the Syrian government is not fulfilling their obligation and this could launch the war. This seems to me to be very exaggerated, and is a pretext for a reason for to break the agreement. ECHI: Do you think that Barack Obama remains committed to bomb Syria?JP: Absolutely. The
agreement is something conjunctural, because it was a very unfavourable
time politically for Washington. We must not forget that the public
opinion and the American Congress have opposed the war; even some
sectors with more warlike positions are opposed to the war. It was a
very unfavorable time; not to mention the international
situation, where they could not get the support they expected from the
neighbors for a time to launch the attack. And even more, the
question of who is going to benefit from the bombing, which was very
questionable; for example the power of the Islamic extremists. These
considerations were very unfavorable for the government. Now,
once the temperature drops, the Congress is no longer in session, the
public will feel a relief because there will be no war, a time
when the opposition to war has dropped and a time when we'd say that Washington will not have the same resistance against an attack.
Is this regard, there are sectors for more war in the United States who are still thinking of war in Syria as a threat to Iran.
In
this whole framework, it should be noted that Israel is always at the
forefront as a major force pushing the war, and as a result, the
representatives of Israel in the US government - advisors, the
Zionists (called experts), are still saying that the negotiations will
fail and when that happens, the government should launch bombs
without consulting Congress so as to avoid what happened recently.
This is an example of what represents Zionism in Washington.
Even some Zionists were
divided in Congress; some continue to support the war, but others,
under the pressure of Putin's intervention and the citizenship had to say that they are not in
complete conformity with the warlike policy. We are in a
place of transition, where popular pressure and Putin's initiative
weighed on the side of a political and diplomatic solution and on the
other side we have the warmongers in government, such as the Mr.
Kerry, the Zionists and the rest of the hawks, who are looking for a
pretext to neutralize this pro-diplomatic wave, pro-reconciliation,
pro-solutions without going into war. But another
argument the hawks are using is to increase and strengthen the
transfer of weapons to terrorist groups, because they say: 'if you do
not throw bombs at least you've got to support the opposition', i.e.
the terrorists with better weapons. So it seems that this
is being considered now and again. Those who are looking for
diplomatic solutions argue that they should not increase the shipment of
arms, because that can affect the destruction of chemical weapons. All
this, put into a broader framework, raises the question: Does this idea
of disarming Syria form a part of a trajectory toward the solution to
stop the war, or is it a mechanism to weaken to Syria before
attacking it. So we are also considering this other hypothesis. That is, step into Iraq with inspectors and disarmament and then return to a more aggressive attack with fewer consequences. ECHI: I agree with this reasoning, it is a clear risk, because Obama's purpose is to liquidate Syria.
JP:
There is another mechanism. Instead of acting directly, the United
States used to third parties as in the case of Francois Hollande and
David Cameron to use them when they find much resistance in the United
States. It is easier for the French and English to funnel weapons
to the terrorists than from the United States at this time where for many reasons, after so many
wars, exhaustion and disenchantment makes things more complicated.
Let us not forget that there are many people, even from left who think
that Europe is more moderate and civilized, than the United States.
They forget that the English and French killed millions of people in
colonial countries; and continued in the post colonial period with
interventions in Asia, Africa and even in Latin America, supporting
terrorists in colonial wars. They always go to Paris to the
Louvre Museum or they go to London to see Buckingham Palace but a lot
of people in Latin America forget that with the Magna Carta, the
British Parliament was an obstacle to hunger and caused the death of more
than 50 million Hindus, attacked China, destroyed the lives of
African slaves, and much more, the wars in Indochina, in Kenya,
Malaysia, and the post-war. So it is hardly surprising that the so-called Socialist Labor Party in France and the Labour Party in England as well as the conservatives, are involved in this war by taking sides together with the United States. ECHI: Finally, is there any other pending issue. JP:
The novelty that we must take into account are the great revelations of
Edward Snowden of the cyber intervention by the United States, with
spying on all decision-making of Presidents, of the main leaders in
the Congresses and the main economic enterprises. It is the new type
of colonialism and still the responses have been very hesitant. Only
Brazil has acted with firmness; Argentina or Uruguay have responded
regarding their sovereignty. For this reason there must be a
strong repudiation, a questioning of the relationships at all levels,
because this is like military invasions in the past few years, when
the United States sent marines to take control of the policy. Now it is
the same thing with the use of the mechanisms of espionage. If in the past a repudiation and the nearly a rupture of relationships was required against this type of intervention, the response, apart from President Rousseff, to this new type of colonialism is too weak n my opinion. ECHI: Very well Petras. Thank you for this thorough analysis for Radio Centenary and we'll be getting together again next Monday. JP: Well. I send a greeting to all the audience, in particular to the fishermen of spring in the Rambla de Montevideo. Translation from original transcript in Spanish by Axis of Logic. Source: Uruguayan Radio Centenario (audio & transcript in Spanish) |
