NATO will not dare to attack Syria
NATO Secretary General has dismissed the prospect of any military intervention in Syria by the Western alliance.
Addressing reporters on Monday during a joint news conference in Tripoli with Chairman of Libya's National Transitional Council (NTC) Mustafa Abdel-Jalil, NATO's Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen reiterated that any military action within Syria by the Western alliance forces is out of the question.
Rasmussen's remarks came in the wake of a recent warning by the Syrian leader, who cautioned the West that any intervention to divide Syria would break up the entire region.
Press TV has conducted an interview with Ali al-Ahmed, director of the Institute for (Persian) Gulf Affairs ([P]IGA) from Washington, to discuss the issue further.
Press TV: Are you surprised at NATO's announcement that they would not intervene in Syria?
al-Ahmed: No, I am not surprised because the situation in Syria is way different than that of Libya. Syria is much more stable and the security forces are united with the government. Secondly, Syria -neighboring Israel- gives the Syrian government greater leverage to push back the Western pressures -in addition to the support of Russia and China. So I think the situation is different; they was an attempt to get the UN Security Council to condemn Syria and to start the process [of] allowing the NATO to attack Syria but that has really stalled in the UN Security Council and the Arab League produced an initiative that is helping the Syrian government stile off the protest there.
Press TV: What do you think is the criteria for NATO? We saw how they intervened in Libya, but what we see taking place in Yemen, for example, with more and more people being killed every day; what is the determining factor for NATO to decide if they are going to interfere in a conflict or not?
al-Ahmed: NATO, to be sure, has not intervened in Libya for humanitarian reasons. This must be clear to the viewers and to the world that it was not the criterion to intervene in Libya. After all, the majority of the casualties in Libya [was] due to the bombings of NATO airplanes. In Yemen, as you mentioned, the situation is no different from that of Libya; however, the NATO and the Western governments have not raised the possibility of taking action -even political action. The Saleh regime in Yemen continues to do what he is doing without any challenge or major criticisms from the Western governments, from NATO specifically.
So these decisions [in these situations] are not made based on a humanitarian basis, it is based on political and geo-political reason; in terms of Libya it was economic, the decision-making process in Syria, I think, is much more complicated and [it is] much more difficult to try to unseat the Syrian government or attack Syria because I think there will be an implosion in the whole region (Middle East) and of course NATO is extremely worried about that effect on Israel, so they don't want anything to broaden this conflict further in Syria so we can say that this conflict, at least in the near future, will not include NATO or any Western governments attacking or intervening militarily in Syria.
Press TV: Let's look at the NATO in general. One of the reasons for their involvement, they said, was for humanitarian purposes but, as you have pointed out, there were more civilian causalities after they got involved. Who will hold them responsible? Every day, it seems more clear that practically a massacre has taken place in Sirte and of course in other parts of the country. Who will hold NATO accountable?
al-Ahmed: The reality is that there is nobody who can hold NATO responsible for any of the casualties that have taken place either directly by the bombings that NATO airplanes conducted or [for its] help in allowing the massacre of civilians in Sirte or other parts of Libya, so there is no push in international law that allows anyone to raise this flag and this is the reality.
Addressing reporters on Monday during a joint news conference in Tripoli with Chairman of Libya's National Transitional Council (NTC) Mustafa Abdel-Jalil, NATO's Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen reiterated that any military action within Syria by the Western alliance forces is out of the question.
Rasmussen's remarks came in the wake of a recent warning by the Syrian leader, who cautioned the West that any intervention to divide Syria would break up the entire region.
Press TV has conducted an interview with Ali al-Ahmed, director of the Institute for (Persian) Gulf Affairs ([P]IGA) from Washington, to discuss the issue further.
Press TV: Are you surprised at NATO's announcement that they would not intervene in Syria?
al-Ahmed: No, I am not surprised because the situation in Syria is way different than that of Libya. Syria is much more stable and the security forces are united with the government. Secondly, Syria -neighboring Israel- gives the Syrian government greater leverage to push back the Western pressures -in addition to the support of Russia and China. So I think the situation is different; they was an attempt to get the UN Security Council to condemn Syria and to start the process [of] allowing the NATO to attack Syria but that has really stalled in the UN Security Council and the Arab League produced an initiative that is helping the Syrian government stile off the protest there.
Press TV: What do you think is the criteria for NATO? We saw how they intervened in Libya, but what we see taking place in Yemen, for example, with more and more people being killed every day; what is the determining factor for NATO to decide if they are going to interfere in a conflict or not?
al-Ahmed: NATO, to be sure, has not intervened in Libya for humanitarian reasons. This must be clear to the viewers and to the world that it was not the criterion to intervene in Libya. After all, the majority of the casualties in Libya [was] due to the bombings of NATO airplanes. In Yemen, as you mentioned, the situation is no different from that of Libya; however, the NATO and the Western governments have not raised the possibility of taking action -even political action. The Saleh regime in Yemen continues to do what he is doing without any challenge or major criticisms from the Western governments, from NATO specifically.
So these decisions [in these situations] are not made based on a humanitarian basis, it is based on political and geo-political reason; in terms of Libya it was economic, the decision-making process in Syria, I think, is much more complicated and [it is] much more difficult to try to unseat the Syrian government or attack Syria because I think there will be an implosion in the whole region (Middle East) and of course NATO is extremely worried about that effect on Israel, so they don't want anything to broaden this conflict further in Syria so we can say that this conflict, at least in the near future, will not include NATO or any Western governments attacking or intervening militarily in Syria.
Press TV: Let's look at the NATO in general. One of the reasons for their involvement, they said, was for humanitarian purposes but, as you have pointed out, there were more civilian causalities after they got involved. Who will hold them responsible? Every day, it seems more clear that practically a massacre has taken place in Sirte and of course in other parts of the country. Who will hold NATO accountable?
al-Ahmed: The reality is that there is nobody who can hold NATO responsible for any of the casualties that have taken place either directly by the bombings that NATO airplanes conducted or [for its] help in allowing the massacre of civilians in Sirte or other parts of Libya, so there is no push in international law that allows anyone to raise this flag and this is the reality.
