Connect with us

Latest

News

Interview

Former British Ambassador to Syria says OPCW turning into NATO tool for war

It looks like the stage is being set for another show

Published

on

1,959 Views

Between the Skripal poisonings and the staged Douma chemical attack, the West has been on a mission to find a solid pretext for ramping up their hysteria against Russia even further, to ever more so isolate it, and for developing a good excuse to escalate the West’s military participation in Syria with an aim of eliminating the Assad government.

The need for support from international organizations towards these efforts has never been greater. However, up until now, they’ve never been able to turn up evidence which conclusively or convincingly pointed the finger at either of these parties, being poorly orchestrated charades as they were. Now, however, they’ve successfully managed to win for the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) the power to assign blame for chemical, and other, attacks.

Additionally, suspected members of the US funded White Helmets group, which orchestrated the Douma debacle, have recently been spotted prepping for another such incident. It looks like the stage is being set for another show, and this time, it might just provide the ending that America and its allies have been working so hard to secure, and that is a good excuse to drop some more bombs on Syria and to potentially launch a US-led coalition invasion to take out the Syrian government.

Former British envoy to Syria, Peter Ford, recently described this agenda to the Sputnik News Agency:

OPCW members have passed the UK’s draft extension of the organization’s powers, with the move harshly slammed by Russia, which said the West will be tempted to struggle for greater influence over the OPCW’s decision making. Former British Ambassador to Syria Peter Ford has given his take on the motion.

Sputnik: Has the decision come as a surprise for you?

Peter Ford: Not really, because the British and the Americans have been trying for a number of months to recreate a body that previously existed for Syria called the Joint Investigative Mechanism, which did have a power to attribute responsibility for alleged chemical attacks, and this mechanism expired.

Russia, with some other countries, prevented the renewal of the mandate of this JIM, with the British looking for ways to reverse this decision, and they think they have found this through this extraordinary, in all ways, very extraordinary meeting of the OPCW council. And it’s all about Syria, in my opinion. It’s all about finding a pretext for the next round of the Western war against Syria; an investigation is currently underway into alleged chemical incidents in Douma on the outskirts of Damascus in April.

The Western powers have been failing, so far, in their attempt to pin blame on Damascus; another of these commissions which is inquiring on Syria refused to be pressured by Britain and America into pointing the finger at Syria. So, I think in response, the British went to The Hague, where it’s easier to manipulate decisions.

Sputnik: Earlier Moscow dubbed the UK proposal as politicized. Would you agree with that? What’s your take on that statement?

Peter Ford: 100 percent politicized. In fact, the OPCW, I’m sad to say, is being turned into a branch of NATO, an arm, a tool of NATO. Already, the Western powers have immense influence within the OPCW. The head of it, the director, is a Turk; Turkey is a member of NATO. The staff is mainly from Western countries.

The whole culture of the place is anti-Russian, pro-Western. This latest move is a nail in the coffin of the impartiality of an important international institution. It just diminishes the architecture for control of prohibited weapons. This politicization is very short-sighted and in the long term will backfire on the West.

Sputnik: Some experts have noted that Britain was trying to push this initiative to decrease public interest in the lack of proof of Russia’s involvement in the poisoning of the Skripals. Would you agree with that sentiment?

Peter Ford: No, because I think it’s worse than that, because it’s all about Syria. What’s happening here, and it’s very important to understand this, is the countdown to the next war, to the next round of the war against Syria.

What this is, it represents a milestone in the British-led (Americans are not far behind) attempt to prepare a pretext to bomb Syria again, as happened in April. Only next time, the bombing is going to be much heavier. What’s happening with this Hague decision is the conditioning of the international opinion, the conditioning of Western public opinion to prepare for the coming strike.

Sputnik: This event that is now happening in terms of the decision, the OPCW has gone against the West; is that now going to ratchet further actions to exacerbate the situation? Is that the way you see it?

Peter Ford: It is exactly. We see that the Western powers have deliberately painted themselves into a corner. After the carefully targeted, calibrated strikes of April, thanks to Russia, which put on enough pressure to ensure that nothing too terrible happened; after that the Western powers threatened that next time, the brakes will be off, no restraint.

They have put themselves under pressure next time to strike much more heavily at President Assad personally: they will try, I expect, to attack, to bomb his residence, the command and control centers of the Syrian army. This is what they were planning to do in April, but were prevented from doing by Russian pressure. […]

It’s quite possible that a new allegation of chemical weapons use, pinned naturally on the Assad regime, could be carried out in Syria, to be investigated by an OPCW which may conduct a politically skewed investigation to assert that it was carried out by Assad’s government, to be followed up with a swift US coalition assault on the Syrian government in Damascus. With the US openly funding the White Helmets, with White Helmets being openly linked to terrorists operating against the Syrian government in Syria, and with the White Helmets being the one making the assertions of the Douma attack, which was utilized as a pretext for a US led coalition airstrike, it’s not absurd to expect that this course of action could become a manifest reality, especially if the main stream media is prepared to sell it to the public.

 

 

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
10 Comments

10
Leave a Reply

avatar
10 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
10 Comment authors
my2CentsGeneral KreegCharles Pettibonetomlynettechaplin@virgilio.it Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
my2Cents
Guest
my2Cents

Well that was rather obvious wasn’t it. No big revelation here.

General Kreeg
Guest
General Kreeg

Sickening!

Charles Pettibone
Guest
Charles Pettibone

There is zero political will for a ground invasion of Syria. It simply will not happen. Assad could murder children on live television while laughing maniacally and gassing Ronald McDonald. There still wouldn’t be a ground invasion of Syria. I could see US and coalition airstrikes- but the last airstrikes were 100% for show (zero casualties and hitting some empty buildings) and I imagine another round would be the same.

tom
Guest
tom

When contemplating the horrible schemes of the British government, I am somewhat reminded of Bertrand Russell’s comment about Ancient Greece. The prevailing tyranny (whether of one man, the few or the many) was mitigated by the inefficiency of the police, which allowed a larger proportion of decent people to survive.

Downing Street and Whitehall contain many ghastly creeps with frightful plans – but luckily for us, they are also immensely incompetent.

lynettechaplin@virgilio.it
Guest

I am hoping that the presence of Russia in Syria will be a deterrent in any attack by british and american terrorists.

dave3200
Guest
dave3200

It seems the entire plan is contingent on another false flag chemical attack which will be presented in videos choreographed by the White Helmets and friends. Since a great deal is known about the pending attack, why don’t Syrian and Russian forces simply wipe out those who are preparing to perform the scam? Destroy the White Helmets, their chemical weapons, their leaders, their vehicles, everything. It will take a long time for them to reconstruct and resume their sneaky little scam. Now is a good time to do it since the U.S. isn’t likely to come to their defense just… Read more »

ColinNZ
Guest
ColinNZ

The SAA+allies+regional powers on the ground have made such sacrifices in the last several years, leading them to the brink of an historic victory of such global significance, that they will simply not now allow a US-driven “invasion” from a coalition that has literally run out of significant boots-on-the-ground. The US knows that, even if it succeeded (and that is a very big ‘IF’) the ‘during’ and ‘after’ would come with such a huge financial, political and casualty price tag as to be beyond any justification. The reason Trump is meeting Putin in July is to negotiate the US withdrawal… Read more »

Erik Skjold
Guest
Erik Skjold

When will the OPCW publish their forensic findings from Douma? Its been 10 weeks, maybe findings only confirm the bluff. In the Skipal incident it took Porton Down only 10 days to pronounce their findings.

Jack
Guest
Jack

The problem is that to pass a true stories from Syria is extremely difficult because midstream media lie and majority of population listening to them and watching news are convinced about this lie as a true story. Personally think that Russia should engage more actively in a combat in Syria and less be involved with diplomatic involvement seeking for stabilisation in Syria only military operations and victorious side that coming out of it can count on frill success.

ourblue
Guest
ourblue

I suspect,like many others will, that I can pre-empt the conclusion for any forthcoming
events involving chemicals that the OPCW will investigate. The level of
credibility in international organisations, for me at least, is so low as to be
a negative percent. Also. Can anyone with sufficient knowledge give me an
explanation how ‘Chlorine bombs’ are so deadly, other than damage caused by
impact?

Latest

New York Times hit piece on Trump and NATO exposes alliance as outdated and obsolete (Video)

The Duran Quick Take: Episode 61.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

RT CrossTalk host Peter Lavelle and The Duran’s Alex Christoforou take a quick look at the New York Times hit piece citing anonymous sources, with information that the U.S. President dared to question NATO’s viability.

Propaganda rag, the NYT, launched its latest presidential smear aimed at discrediting Trump and provoking the establishment, warmonger left into more impeachment – Twenty-fifth Amendment talking points.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

Via The American Conservative


The New York Times scored a serious scoop when it revealed on Monday that President Trump had questioned in governmental conversations—on more than one occasion, apparently—America’s membership in NATO. Unfortunately the paper then slipped into its typical mode of nostrum journalism. My Webster’s New World Dictionary defines “nostrum” as “quack medicine” entailing “exaggerated claims.” Here we had quack journalism executed in behalf of quack diplomacy.

The central exaggerated claim is contained in the first sentence, in which it is averred that NATO had “deterred Soviet and Russian aggression for 70 years.” This is wrong, as can be seen through just a spare amount of history.

True, NATO saved Europe from the menace of Russian Bolshevism. But it did so not over 70 years but over 40 years—from 1949 to 1989. That’s when the Soviet Union had 1.3 million Soviet and client-state troops poised on Western Europe’s doorstep, positioned for an invasion of Europe through the lowlands of Germany’s Fulda Gap.

How was this possible? It was possible because Joseph Stalin had pushed his armies farther and farther into the West as the German Wehrmacht collapsed at the end of World War II. In doing so, and in the process capturing nearly all of Eastern Europe, he ensured that the Soviets had no Western enemies within a thousand miles of Leningrad or within 1,200 miles of Moscow. This vast territory represented not only security for the Russian motherland (which enjoys no natural geographical barriers to deter invasion from the West) but also a potent staging area for an invasion of Western Europe.

The first deterrent against such an invasion, which Stalin would have promulgated had he thought he could get away with it, was America’s nuclear monopoly. By the time that was lost, NATO had emerged as a powerful and very necessary deterrent. The Soviets, concluding that the cost of an invasion was too high, defaulted to a strategy of undermining Western interests anywhere around the world where that was possible. The result was global tensions stirred up at various global trouble spots, most notably Korea and Vietnam.

But Europe was saved, and NATO was the key. It deserves our respect and even reverence for its profound success as a military alliance during a time of serious threat to the West.

But then the threat went away. Gone were the 1.3 million Soviet and client-state troops. Gone was Soviet domination of Eastern Europe. Indeed, gone, by 1991, was the Soviet Union itself, an artificial regime of brutal ideology superimposed upon the cultural entity of Mother Russia. It was a time for celebration.

But it was also a time to contemplate the precise nature of the change that had washed over the world and to ponder what that might mean for old institutions—including NATO, a defensive military alliance created to deter aggression from a menacing enemy to the east. Here’s where Western thinking went awry. Rather than accepting as a great benefit the favorable developments enhancing Western security—the Soviet military retreat, the territorial reversal, the Soviet demise—the West turned NATO into a territorial aggressor of its own, absorbing nations that had been part of the Soviet sphere of control and pushing right up to the Russian border. Now Leningrad (renamed St. Petersburg after the obliteration of the menace of Soviet communism) resides within a hundred miles of NATO military forces, while Moscow is merely 200 miles from Western troops.

Since the end of the Cold War, NATO has absorbed 13 nations, some on the Russian border, others bordering lands that had been part of Russia’s sphere of interest for centuries. This constitutes a policy of encirclement, which no nation can accept without protest or pushback. And if NATO were to absorb those lands of traditional Russian influence—particularly Ukraine and Georgia—that would constitute a major threat to Russian security, as Russian President Vladimir Putin has sought to emphasize to Western leaders for years.

So, no, NATO has not deterred Russian aggression for 70 years. It did so for 40 and has maintained a destabilizing posture toward Russia ever since. The problem here is the West’s inability to perceive how changed geopolitical circumstances might require a changed geopolitical strategy. The encirclement strategy has had plenty of critics—George Kennan before he died; academics John Mearsheimer, Stephen Walt, and Robert David English; former diplomat Jack Matlock; the editors of The Nation. But their voices have tended to get drowned out by the nostrum diplomacy and the nostrum journalism that supports it at every turn.

You can’t drown out Donald Trump because he’s president of the United States. And so he has to be traduced, ridiculed, dismissed, and marginalized. That’s what the Times story, by Julian Barnes and Helene Cooper, sought to do. Consider the lead, designed to emphasize just how outlandish Trump’s musings are before the reader even has a chance to absorb what he may have been thinking: “There are few things that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia desires more than the weakening of NATO, the military alliance among the United States, Europe and Canada that has deterred Soviet and Russian aggression for 70 years.” Translation: “Take that, Mr. President! You’re an idiot.”

Henry Kissinger had something interesting to say about Trump in a recent interview with the Financial Times. “I think Trump may be one of those figures in history,” said the former secretary of state, “who appears from time to time to mark the end of an era and to force it to give up its old pretenses.” One Western pretense about Russia, so ardently enforced by the likes of Julian Barnes and Helene Cooper (who, it may be safe to say, know less about world affairs and their history than Henry Kissinger), is that nothing really changed with the Soviet collapse and NATO had to turn aggressive in order to keep that menacing nation in its place.

Trump clearly doesn’t buy that pretense. He said during the campaign that NATO was obsolete. Then he backtracked, saying he only wanted other NATO members to pay their fair share of the cost of deterrence. He even confessed, after Hillary Clinton identified NATO as “the strongest military alliance in the history of the world,” that he only said NATO was obsolete because he didn’t know much about it. But he was learning—enough, it appears, to support as president Montenegro’s entry into NATO in 2017. Is Montenegro, with 5,332 square miles and some 620,000 citizens, really a crucial element in Europe’s desperate project to protect itself against Putin’s Russia?

We all know that Trump is a crude figure—not just in his disgusting discourse but in his fumbling efforts to execute political decisions. As a politician, he often seems like a doctor attempting to perform open-heart surgery while wearing mittens. His idle musings about leaving NATO are a case in point—an example of a politician who lacks the skill and finesse to nudge the country in necessary new directions.

But Kissinger has a point about the man. America and the world have changed, while the old ways of thinking have not kept pace. The pretenses of the old have blinded the status quo defenders into thinking nothing has changed. Trump, almost alone among contemporary American politicians, is asking questions to which the world needs new answers. NATO, in its current configuration and outlook, is a danger to peace, not a guarantor of it.


Robert W. Merry, longtime Washington journalist and publishing executive, is the author most recently of President McKinley: Architect of the American Century

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Nigel Farage To Back Another “Vote Leave” Campaign If UK Holds Second Brexit Referendum

Nigel Farage said Friday that he would be willing to wage another “Vote Leave” campaign, even if he needed to use another party as the “vehicle” for his opposition.

Published

on

Via Zerohedge


Pro-European MPs from various political parties are pushing back against claims made by Prime Minister Theresa May’s government that a second Brexit referendum – which supporters have branded as a “People’s Vote” on May’s deal – would take roughly 14 months to organize, according to RT.

But while support for a second vote grows, one of the most notorious proponents of the original “Vote Leave” campaign is hinting at a possible return to politics to try and fight the effort.

After abandoning UKIP, the party he helped create, late last year, Nigel Farage said Friday that he would be willing to wage another “Vote Leave” campaign, even if he needed to use another party as the “vehicle” for his opposition. Farage also pointed out that a delay of Brexit Day would likely put it after the European Parliament elections in May.

“I think, I fear that the House of Commons is going to effectively overturn that Brexit. To me, the most likely outcome of all of this is an extension of Article 50. There could be another referendum,” he told Sky News.

According to official government guidance shown to lawmakers on Wednesday, which was subsequently leaked to the Telegraph, as May tries to head off a push by ministers who see a second referendum as the best viable alternative to May’s deal – a position that’s becoming increasingly popular with Labour Party MPs.

“In order to inform the discussions, a very short paper set out in factual detail the number of months that would be required, this was illustrative only and our position of course is that there will be no second referendum,,” May said. The statement comes as May has been meeting with ministers and leaders from all parties to try to find a consensus deal that could potentially pass in the House of Commons.

The 14 month estimate is how long May and her government expect it would take to pass the primary legislation calling for the referendum (seven months), conduct the question testing with the election committee (12 weeks), pass secondary legislation (six weeks) and conduct the campaigns (16 weeks).

May has repeatedly insisted that a second referendum wouldn’t be feasible because it would require a lengthy delay of Brexit Day, and because it would set a dangerous precedent that wouldn’t offer any more clarity (if some MPs are unhappy with the outcome, couldn’t they just push for a third referendum?). A spokesperson for No. 10 Downing Street said the guidance was produced purely for the purpose of “illustrative discussion” and that the government continued to oppose another vote.

Meanwhile, a vote on May’s “Plan B”, expected to include a few minor alterations from the deal’s previous iteration, has been called for Jan. 29, prompting some MPs to accuse May of trying to run out the clock. May is expected to present the new deal on Monday.

Former Tory Attorney General and pro-remainer MP Dominic Grieve blasted May’s timetable as wrong and said that the government “must be aware of it themselves,” while former Justice Minister Dr Phillip Lee, who resigned his cabinet seat in June over May’s Brexit policy, denounced her warning as “nonsense.”

As May pieces together her revised deal, more MPs are urging her to drop her infamous “red lines” (Labour in particular would like to see the UK remain part of the Customs Union), but with no clear alternative to May’s plan emerging, a delay of Brexit Day is looking like a virtual certainty.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

The National Security Agency Is A Criminal Organization

The National Security Agency values being able to blackmail citizens and members of government at home and abroad more than preventing terrorist attacks.

Paul Craig Roberts

Published

on

Via Paul Craig Roberts…


Years before Edward Snowden provided documented proof that the National Security Agency was really a national insecurity agency as it was violating law and the US Constitution and spying indiscriminately on American citizens, William Binney, who designed and developed the NSA spy program revealed the illegal and unconstitutional spying. Binney turned whistleblower, because NSA was using the program to spy on Americans. As Binney was well known to the US Congress, he did not think he needed any NSA document to make his case. But what he found out was “Congress would never hear me because then they’d lose plausible deniability. That was really their key. They needed to have plausible deniability so they can continue this massive spying program because it gave them power over everybody in the world. Even the members of Congress had power against others [in Congress]; they had power on judges on the Supreme Court, the federal judges, all of them. That’s why they’re so afraid. Everybody’s afraid because all this data that’s about them, the central agencies — the intelligence agencies — they have it. And that’s why Senator Schumer warned President Trump earlier, a few months ago, that he shouldn’t attack the intelligence community because they’ve got six ways to Sunday to come at you. That’s because it’s like J. Edgar Hoover on super steroids. . . . it’s leverage against every member of parliament and every government in the world.”

To prevent whistle-blowing, NSA has “a program now called ‘see something, say something’ about your fellow workers. That’s what the Stasi did. That’s why I call [NSA] the new New Stasi Agency. They’re picking up all the techniques from the Stasi and the KGB and the Gestapo and the SS. They just aren’t getting violent yet that we know of — internally in the US, outside is another story.”

As Binney had no documents to give to the media, blowing the whistle had no consequence for NSA. This is the reason that Snowden released the documents that proved NSA to be violating both law and the Constitution, but the corrupt US media focused blame on Snowden as a “traitor” and not on NSA for its violations.

Whistleblowers are protected by federal law. Regardless, the corrupt US government tried to prosecute Binney for speaking out, but as he had taken no classified document, a case could not be fabricated against him.

Binney blames the NSA’s law-breaking on Dick “Darth” Cheney. He says NSA’s violations of law and Constitution are so extreme that they would have to have been cleared at the top of the government.

Binney describes the spy network, explains that it was supposed to operate only against foreign enemies, and that using it for universal spying so overloads the system with data that the system fails to discover many terrorist activities. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/50932.htm

Apparently, the National Security Agency values being able to blackmail citizens and members of government at home and abroad more than preventing terrorist attacks.

Unfortunately for Americans, there are many Americans who blindly trust the government and provide the means, the misuse of which is used to enslave us. A large percentage of the work in science and technology serves not to free people but to enslave them. By now there is no excuse for scientists and engineers not to know this. Yet they persist in their construction of the means to destroy liberty.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending