Green Party On Syria

I have supported the Green Party for as long as it has existed within the UK.  I think its speakers often make more sense than most other politicians.

However, the statement on Syria, by co-leaders Caroline Lucas and Jonathan Bartley, seems to me misguided. While they express concern about the illegitimacy of US airstrikes on Syria, they at the same time condemn the president of Syria, advocating alternative measures against his government.

Would such measures not hurt Syrian people? When Caroline speaks of freezing ‘the continued flow of arms to the region’ she makes no mention of how supplies from the West – including from Libya via Turkey – are supporting ISIS and Al Qaeda, who, in turn, are killing, trafficking, raping and oppressing Syrian civilians who come under their de facto rule.

Caroline and Jon ought to be aware that there is as yet no authoritative account of the chemical attack last week and that critical observers caution all of us not to jump to conclusions about who is responsible. The event fits a longstanding pattern of trumped up pretexts for intervention that were subsequently discredited.

Which brings me to a point that goes beyond the rights and wrongs of this past week’s events.

For many years – for far more even than the six that the Syrian people have been subjected to constant violence – there has been a geopolitical strategy to remove Assad from power in order to have a Syrian region that is more compliant with the goals of the various external interested parties.

These interested parties, the Greens ought to be aware, are the very same that drive environmental destruction and social injustice across the planet. If you think Assad is the problem, I fear you may not have understood what the problem is.

My reason for posting these remarks is that none of the vision I share with the greens includes breaking up other people’s countries for the sake of the planet’s delinquent elite.

I hope some of the critical intelligence so much in evidence elsewhere in Green Party thinking might be brought to bear more keenly on the narrative you are accepting. My own discovery, for what it’s worth, is that once you start to ask questions about evidence and sources concerning Syria, you realize you may have been misled by seemingly reputable organisations like Amnesty International, Médecins Sans Frontières, by news organisations like BBC and Channel 4, and by UK Government.

 

Why Assad Opposed to Sending his Family to Tehran?

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Amnesty International, BBC, Channel 4, environment, environmental ethics, global justice, journalism, media, MSF, propaganda, Syria, Uncategorized, war. Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to Green Party On Syria

  1. Elizabeth Ardley says:

    Well put!

  2. timhayward says:

    Thanks, Elizabeth!

  3. Tom Secker says:

    Very true. Their lack of a truly alternative foreign policy is one of the major problems I have with the Greens, who are often the best opposition party we have.

  4. Pingback: Green Party On Syria |  SHOAH

  5. Ann Garrison says:

    I agree and I shared with the U.S. Green Party’s Issues and Discussion Facebook page, https://www.facebook.com/groups/587432744659202/. When a Canadian friend sent me this, I told him that Greens are the largest international party, but the loosely affiliated global Green Parties are not always ideologically consistent. I think of the global party as being similar to the Pacifica Radio Network here in the U.S. You’re not going to get ideological consistency throughout the network, but if you tune in to a Pacifica station or affiliate in LA, Houston, NYC, Washington D.C.,College Station, Texas, or Montpelier, Vermont, etc. you can expect something at least similar to what you might hear on the Berkeley station.

  6. Gio Con says:

    One cannot be seriously anti-imperialist and still call for Assad’s removal. If that’s the position of the Greens, then it seems that the Libertarians are indeed the only party with a truly anti-imperialist viewpoint. All the information we in the West have about Assad comes from biased sources, and the few sources that contradict the dominant voice are dismissed. But the UN and MIT reports on the 2013 Ghouta gas attack do not lie — and they vindicate Assad of using gas against his people. Moreover, they cast suspicion on the jihadis as the real gas-using culprits. Bottom line is this: either Europe ends its romanticism with America’s regime change wars, or it will collapse under the weight of poverty, corruption, terrorist attacks, and increased immigration floods. Regime change is not a foreign policy — it’s a war crime.

  7. Carl Romanelli says:

    Thanks, Tim. I agree. Here is the statement from the US Greens:
    http://www.gp.org/missile_strike_in_syria

    • timhayward says:

      Thanks Carl, and in light of what Ann says above, it seems that while homogeneity of opinion is not particularly desirable, some learning through reasoned debate between parties in different countries would be no bad thing! Better than risk being complacent and compliant! From a glance at US materials I thought they look great.

  8. M Kavanagh says:

    I second Elizabeth. Thanks Tim.

  9. Rick says:

    Thank you for saying this. I have never supported The Greens in my country of origin, because they support and represent the extreme left, Soros-sponsored agenda. We live in a world of contradictions, where things are the opposite of what they seem; “anti-fascists” are the ones provoking violence and hate, and “right-wing extremists” are the ones to not want regime change in Syria and war with Russia. The Green movement itself used to put the interests of humankind at the centre of its ideology, now humans are the root cause of all things evil, while eco-industrialists rack-up massive carbon footprints continually flying first-class to deliver their paid lectures that help sustain their huge staff levels, prestige offices and multitude public relations consultants, to not mention their privileged lifestyles.

  10. DocRichard says:

    So Tim, do you have good evidence that Assad does not use barrel bombs? That he has never used gas in war? That his elections are free and fair? That he did not order the crackdown on Arab Spring protesters? That the is military definitely not integrated into his Government? That the indictments brought against him to the ICC in June 2014 are all made up? That his secret police do not imprison, torture and kill political opponents, including children?

    I tend to think there is a germ of truth in the idea that Syria is a rather unpleasant dictatorship.

    • timhayward says:

      Doc Richard, as you will see on my Syria page, I do not claim expert knowledge on Syria. I comment on what we are told by people who do. (I could ask you a question back: what follows from your thinking that there is a germ of truth in an idea? Do you generally take the view that if enough people repeat a thing that makes it true enough to reverse the burden of proof that is usually recognized as the hallmark of justice?) Instead of asking me what I think about those allegations, you could be asking what the actual evidence is.
      That is what I did and that’s how I come to be blogging on the subject. I think you may be surprised, and even shocked, like I was, if you do actually look. A lot of relevant info is here: http://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/wiki/Special:AllPages
      That set of pages is maintained by people with expertise in a range of sciences and other skills. Much better to ask them than me!

  11. Pingback: Who to believe about Syria? | Tim Hayward

Leave a Reply to Elizabeth Ardley Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s