In a front-page OpEd on the Chinese state-owned Global Times, China slams Trump’s involvement in Syria…
“The facts cannot be distorted. This military strike was not authorized by the UN, and the strikes targeted a legal government of a UN member state… it has not been confirmed if the chemical weapons attack happened or if it did, whether government forces or opposition forces launched it. International organizations have not carried out any authoritative investigation.”
China proceeded to point out the obvious, that the entire US attack on Syria was a false flag..
The Syrian government has repeatedly stressed that there is no need for it to use chemical weapons to capture the opposition-controlled Duma city and the use of chemical weapons has provided an excuse for Western intervention. The Syrian government’s argument or Trump’s accusations against the “evil” Assad regime, which one is in line with basic logic? The answer is quite obvious.
The US has a record of launching wars on deceptive grounds. The Bush government asserted the Saddam regime held chemical weapons before the US-British coalition troops invaded Iraq in 2003. However, the coalition forces didn’t find what they called weapons of mass destruction after overthrowing the Saddam regime. Both Washington and London admitted later that their intelligence was false.
The Global Times the warned how the US provocation in Syria could lead to further escalation, and even conflict with Russia:
Washington’s attack on Syria where Russian troops are stationed constitute serious contempt for Russia’s military capabilities and political dignity. Trump, like scolding a pupil, called on Moscow, one of the world’s leading nuclear powers, to abandon its “dark path.” Disturbingly, Washington seems to have become addicted to mocking Russia in this way. Russia is capable of launching a destructive retaliatory attack on the West. Russia’s weak economy is plagued by Western sanctions and squeezing of its strategic space. That the West provokes Russia in such a manner is irresponsible for world peace.
According to Zerohedge, and without stating it expressly, China makes it quite clear on whose side it would be should war break out between Russia and the US…
The situation is still fomenting. The Trump administration said it will sustain the strikes. But how long will the military action continue and whether Russia will fight back as it claimed previously remain uncertain. Western countries continue bullying Russia but are seemingly not afraid of its possible counterattack. Their arrogance breeds risk and danger.
Read the full Global Times op-ed here.
As we reported yesterday, China was the first superpower outside those directly involved to slam the US airstrikes: “Any unilateral military action violates the United Nations charter and its principles and international law and its principles. [The strikes] are also going to add more factors to complicate the resolution of the Syrian crisis,” Chinese foreign ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said in a statement on Saturday afternoon.
Beijing also called for an investigation into claims of a Syrian poison gas attack on the rebel-held town of Douma that rescuers and monitors say killed more than 40 people, and prompted the Western action: “The Chinese side believes a comprehensive, impartial and objective investigation should be conducted into the suspected chemical attacks and it should come up with reliable conclusions … Before this, no conclusion by any side should be made,” Hua said.
* * *
Then, on Saturday during the emergency session of the Security Council on Saturday, Russia proposed a resolution urging the US and its allies to “immediately and without delay cease the aggression against the Syrian Arab Republic and refrain from further aggressive acts in violation of the international law and the UN Charter.” Not surprisingly, the proposal was voted down – and would have been vetoed by the US – but the roll call was surprising: Russia and Bolivia voted in favor of the resolution… alongside with China.
If there was any confusion on whose side of the Syrian conflict China finds itself, that confusion is now officially gone.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Duran.