<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div id="container" class="container content-width3 font-size5">
<div id="reader-header" class="header"><br class=""><div class="domain-border"></div>
<h1 id="reader-title" class="">The war is far from being over in Syria – STORIES@SOAS – Medium</h1><div id="meta-data" class="meta-data">
</div>
</div>
<hr class="">
<div class="content">
<div id="moz-reader-content" class="line-height4"><div id="readability-page-1" class="page"><div class="postArticle-content js-postField js-notesSource js-trackedPost" data-post-id="17937139ac29" data-source="post_page" data-collection-id="1d2835e53f4c" data-tracking-context="postPage" data-scroll="native"><section name="cb66" class="section--body section section--first section--last"><div class="section-content"><div class="sectionLayout--insetColumn section-inner"><h2 name="16c3" id="16c3" class="graf graf--h4 graf-after--h3 graf--subtitle">Syrian Corner talks with Gilbert Achcar about recent developments in the Syrian conflict.</h2><h4 name="26ae" id="26ae" class="graf--h4 graf-after--figure graf"><em class="markup--h4-em markup--em">Gilbert
Achcar is Professor of Development Studies at SOAS, University of
London, as well as a well-known author focusing on the Middle East and
the Arab World. He met with Syrian Corner during Syria Awareness Week
2018. Achcar posits that the Syrian conflict is far from over and that
for Bashar al-Assad to establish a new political framework, an accord
between the US and Russia is necessary. Achcar says the role of Iran in a
future Syria is one of the key issues at stake, and discusses the
Turkish war against the PYD, the regional role of Saudi Arabia, the
international peace conferences for Syria, the recent demonstrations in
Iran, and the new US foreign policy for the Middle East in the interview
below.</em></h4><figure name="ed95" id="ed95" class="graf--figure graf-after--h4 graf graf--layoutOutsetLeft" data-scroll="native"><div class="aspectRatioPlaceholder is-locked"></div></figure><h4 name="6b99" id="6b99" class="graf--h4 graf-after--figure graf"><strong class="markup--h4-strong markup--strong">Assad and Putin recently declared that they have “won the war.” Is the Syrian war over? What will happen to Bashar al-Assad?</strong></h4><p name="04a5" id="04a5" class="graf--p graf-after--h4 graf">There
is a lot of wishful thinking in such proclamations: battles are still
raging in the Idlib region and in East Ghouta. It is true, though, that
the regime, backed by Iran and Russia, has now been consolidated and is
no longer facing an existential threat. Twice before, it was on the
verge of a massive defeat, rescued each time by foreign intervention,
first by Iran, then by Russia. As a result, the regime has now the upper
hand militarily. But when I say ‘regime,’ I am actually referring to
the Russia-Iran-Assad axis, as the Assad regime alone would not have
been able to accomplish any of this. Far from it, it would have been
defeated a long time ago.</p><p name="e617" id="e617" class="graf--p graf-after--p graf">Besides,
there is still a very large area of Syria out of regime control in the
North-East, dominated by the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). The
Syrian-Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) led by the Democratic
Union Party (PYD) are the SDF’s backbone. They control a huge part of
Syria, comprising the whole area east of the Euphrates to the Turkish
and Iraqi borders — and this is where US troops are actually involved on
the ground. Two more areas are under control of the YPG and their
allies: Manbij, west of the Euphrates, and Afrin where the present
Turkish offensive is taking place.</p><h4 name="2963" id="2963" class="graf--h4 graf-after--p graf"><strong class="markup--h4-strong markup--strong">Specifically
addressing the issue of the YPG: Turkey has started an attack on the
YPG-controlled area of Afrin. Does this represent a new escalation of
the conflict?</strong></h4><p name="b70a" id="b70a" class="graf--p graf-after--h4 graf">Here
lies a major contradiction. For many years, Western powers have been
following their Turkish ally, a key member of NATO, in labelling the
Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) as a terrorist organisation. The Turkish
army has engaged in several offensives against the Kurds in Turkey over
the years with the support of NATO countries.</p><p name="c827" id="c827" class="graf--p graf-after--p graf">However,
when the United States decided to combat ISIS in both Syria and Iraq in
2014, it did not want to involve US troops on the ground directly in
the battle but provided instead air and material support to local
forces. Thus, it found that the best possible ally in this battle in
Syria from a military perspective would be the Kurdish forces.
Washington encouraged the creation of the SDF, with the inclusion of
Syrian Arabs mostly belonging to the region now under SDF control, so
that the US does not appear as involved in an ethnic fight on the side
of the Kurdish minority. Since everybody knows that the PYD/YPG are
closely tied to the PKK, this alliance created a political paradox. In
fighting ISIS, the US relied on a force that is tied to a political
movement officially labelled as ‘terrorist’ by Turkey and its NATO
allies, including Washington. Unsurprisingly, this has hugely irritated
the Turkish state, outraged at seeing the US cooperating with its public
enemy number one.</p><p name="3fb0" id="3fb0" class="graf--p graf-after--p graf">This
was made even more acute by the fact that Erdogan had undergone a sharp
nationalist shift in 2015 when his party, the Justice and Development
Party (AKP) lost the parliamentary majority. This was due to an increase
in the votes garnered by a left-wing coalition in which the Kurdish
movement played a central role, but it was also due, most importantly,
to losing votes to the far-right Turkish nationalists. Faced with this,
Erdogan resumed the war on the Kurds after years of making peace with
the Kurdish movement, resorting to whipping up Turkish nationalism. The
Islamic conservative stance of his discourse did not change, but a new
shift occurred in the direction of Turkish nationalism and renewed
onslaught on the Kurds. Erdogan organised a second election five months
later, in which his party regained a parliamentary majority. Currently
the AKP is in alliance with the major far-right Turkish nationalist
party.</p><p name="c215" id="c215" class="graf--p graf-after--p graf">Basically,
this stance of Erdogan put him increasingly on a collision course with
the US. Tensions with the Obama administration surged. Erdogan bet for a
while on the Trump administration — Donald Trump promised to stop
supporting the Kurdish forces in Syria. However, the Pentagon
contradicted him, for the Kurdish forces have proven that they are
excellent fighters and have been instrumental in defeating ISIS.</p><p name="cec0" id="cec0" class="graf--p graf-after--p graf">The
Pentagon regards the SDF as the main card they hold today in Syria.
They know that if they cut ties with the SDF, the Assad regime and
Iran-led forces will inevitably try to recover the vast strategic area
to the east of the Euphrates. Since the US is determined to contain
Iran’s expansion in the region, the Pentagon sees no other option than
to provide the Syrian-Kurdish forces and the SDF continued support. This
is where the friction lies.</p><p name="83e5" id="83e5" class="graf--p graf-after--p graf">Erdogan
is currently attacking the Kurdish-majority region of Afrin in
North-West Syria. This region did play no role in the fight against ISIS
and was thus no concern for the US. No US troops are present there. But
Erdogan threatened to turn against Manbij — where the SDF is backed by
direct US presence on the ground. Russia greenlighted the Turkish
intervention in the Afrin region, withdrawing its own troops from there.
Its aim is to thus exacerbate the Turkish-US rift.</p><p name="fc65" id="fc65" class="graf--p graf-after--p graf">This
whole situation is getting even more complicated, and this is where we
can reconnect to the original question: it is far from being over in
Syria. Any “mission accomplished,” as Bush announced very carelessly and
unwisely soon after the occupation of Iraq and as Putin has proclaimed
twice about Syria, is merely wishful thinking. Nothing is solved in
Syria. The Assad regime, even with Russia’s support, does not have the
capacity to control the country. It needs Iran. Yet, Iran’s presence in
Syria is unacceptable for both the US and Israel.</p><figure name="b0ee" id="b0ee" class="graf-after--p graf--figure graf"><div class="aspectRatioPlaceholder is-locked"></div><figcaption class="imageCaption">Courtesy of <a href="http://syria.liveuamap.com/" data-href="http://syria.liveuamap.com/" class="markup--figure-anchor markup--anchor" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">syria.liveuamap.com</a></figcaption></figure><h4 name="bb4e" id="bb4e" class="graf--h4 graf-after--figure graf"><strong class="markup--h4-strong markup--strong">Would Turkey, if it defeats the Kurdish forces, be willing to go as far as to occupy Manbij?</strong></h4><p name="afd8" id="afd8" class="graf--p graf-after--h4 graf">It
is a very tough nut to crack indeed, and what is happening now is quite
telling. It would be quite difficult for Turkish forces to remain in
the Afrin region for a long time even if they manage to occupy it, as
they would fall under permanent attacks. Moreover, they would be engaged
in war on a foreign territory, without the excuse of being invited by
the official government unlike Iran’s and Russia’s forces.</p><p name="87f4" id="87f4" class="graf--p graf-after--p graf">Erdogan
is playing with fire. He has taken a great risk with this operation.
Facing discontent even within his own party, he is using this
nationalist drive to consolidate his power. But a military setback could
cost him a lot.</p><h4 name="855a" id="855a" class="graf--h4 graf-after--p graf"><strong class="markup--h4-strong markup--strong">Under what circumstances would Iran leave Syria?</strong></h4><p name="d269" id="d269" class="graf--p graf-after--h4 graf">Iran
would need to be compelled to leave. This could happen if there is a
Russian-American agreement, in the form of a United Nations Security
Council resolution stipulating that, on the basis of a political
agreement that would be reached in Geneva, all foreign troops that
entered Syria after 2011 (excluding the Russians who were already in
Syria long before that year) should leave the country.</p><p name="0351" id="0351" class="graf--p graf-after--p graf">It
would be difficult for Iran to say “no,” especially if the Syrian
regime is part of this deal. Assad would not side with Iran over Moscow
if he had to choose. Moscow relies on his regime’s forces on the ground,
while Iran is occupying the ground. Tehran would not allow the Syrian
regime the same margin of autonomy as Moscow would. Add to that that the
Iranian regime is ideologically quite different from the Syrian regime.
The Syrian regime has been portrayed by many as a bulwark against
Islamic fundamentalism even though it is propped on the ground by
Iran-led Islamic fundamentalist forces. That’s also part of the
complexity of this situation.</p><h4 name="72aa" id="72aa" class="graf--h4 graf-after--p graf"><strong class="markup--h4-strong markup--strong">There
have been some important demonstrations in Iran since the 28th of
December last year. What influence on Iran’s intervention in Syria can
they have?</strong></h4><p name="0db3" id="0db3" class="graf--p graf-after--h4 graf">Had
the movement carried on and continued to expand, it may have created a
situation compelling the regime to reconsider its intervention in Syria,
which was condemned by the demonstrators. But the movement subsided and
was quelled, and the regime is back in control. We see, however, a
surge in the tension between the two wings of the regime. The reformist
wing represented by Iranian President Rouhani is trying to curtail the
hard-line wing of the Revolutionary Guard (<em class="markup--p-em markup--em">Pasdaran</em>), arguing that the latter and its foreign interventions are a burden on the Iranian economy.</p><p name="5262" id="5262" class="graf--p graf-after--p graf">If
the social turmoil resumes, things may change, but for now the regime
is in full control. Moreover, Syria is an important card in Tehran’s
confrontation with the Trump administration, which threatens to cancel
the nuclear agreement. Such a move would play into the hands of the
hardliners and therefore encourage a continuation of Iran’s expansion as
a counter movement to US pressure.</p><h4 name="0c48" id="0c48" class="graf--h4 graf-after--p graf"><strong class="markup--h4-strong markup--strong">Do you think the European Union (EU) should have a bigger role in criticising Turkey for the attack on the Kurds?</strong></h4><p name="d930" id="d930" class="graf--p graf-after--h4 graf">The
EU has failed to act independently of the United States on the global
level with regard to political and military issues. It has mostly
behaved until now as an auxiliary of the United States. This has become a
problem for Europe with the Trump administration because it is the
first time that there is a US president who is so much in contrast
politically with Europe’s mainstream and so close to Europe’s far right.
The Bush administration did have problems with some European
governments, such as France’s and Germany’s that stood against the
invasion of Iraq due to differing interests. But Tony Blair’s UK
government, for instance, was fully involved on the side of Bush.</p><p name="31e2" id="31e2" class="graf--p graf-after--p graf">On
the Palestine issue, there has been a crystallisation of a different EU
opinion, which is why the President of the Palestine Liberation
Organization (PLO), Mahmoud Abbas, is now attempting to get the
Europeans to recognize the Palestinian state. On Iran too, there are
open divergences between the Europeans and the Trump administration. The
European governments were quite happy with Obama’s policy leading to
the nuclear deal with Iran, which Trump considers to be the worst
agreement ever concluded by the US. If he does rescind the nuclear
agreement, this will create an open crisis in US-European relations.
Thus, Palestine and Iran, for the time being, are two contentious issues
on which there is a sharp contrast between the US and the EU. The
Syrian issue though is not one on which Europe holds views opposed to
that of the US. On Syria, the EU has displayed no independent stance to
this day.</p><h4 name="fc3f" id="fc3f" class="graf--h4 graf-after--p graf"><strong class="markup--h4-strong markup--strong">Considering that the conflict is not over, do you think there is any possibility of reconstruction, as Assad is calling for?</strong></h4><p name="7066" id="7066" class="graf--p graf-after--h4 graf">Again,
that is wishful thinking. Russia itself has on several occasions called
upon the EU to fund the reconstruction of Syria. They have a lot of
nerve because Russia has secured a position whereby, if there were to be
a reconstruction of Syria, it would play a key role in it. Moscow would
like the Europeans to fund Syria’s reconstruction with Russian
companies pocketing the lion’s share of contracts. But this will not
happen because the Europeans will not disburse any money without a US
green light, which will not be given until Washington is convinced that
Iran won’t take advantage of the situation. Under the present
conditions, Iran too would necessarily secure a major part of the
market. So, reconstruction won’t really be on the agenda until this
whole political puzzle is solved.</p><p name="f689" id="f689" class="graf--p graf-after--p graf">Russia
is trying to set a post-war political framework for Syria. They’ve
started doing it at the end of 2016, shortly before Trump inaugurated
his presidency. They were expecting him to deliver on his promise of new
relations with Russia, but for the time being this is not happening as
the establishment in Washington reacted with a strongly anti-Russian
position. In any event, Trump won’t reach any deal with the Russians
unless they agree to stop cooperating with Iran in Syria and push its
forces out of the country.</p><p name="6591" id="6591" class="graf--p graf-after--p graf">For
Trump the ideal scenario would be to reach a deal with Putin, entrust
the Russians to take care of Syria on the condition that they push Iran
out. In exchange for that, the United States could remove sanctions on
Russia and give it some concessions in Europe. But this is clearly not
on the horizon for now.</p><h4 name="49d9" id="49d9" class="graf--h4 graf-after--p graf"><strong class="markup--h4-strong markup--strong">Do you think any of the talks in Sochi and Geneva will change anything in Syria?</strong></h4><p name="d074" id="d074" class="graf--p graf-after--h4 graf">These
talks are about the conditions of a political settlement. We know more
or less what this will look like — a transitional period, a new
constitution, new elections, all this with Assad remaining in power and
running in a new presidential election — so there’s not much new to be
expected in that regard. Moscow and Assad proclaim that they are willing
to have international observers monitoring new elections. They may be
betting on Assad’s victory in free presidential elections today in
Syria, because the Assad regime is one bloc whereas the opposition is
very much divided. The fact that the opposition is in shambles may give
the Assad regime enough confidence to undergo such a scenario.</p><p name="6253" id="6253" class="graf--p graf-after--p graf">However, for such a settlement to happen, an international agreement is necessary first. In the Moscow-sponsored<strong class="markup--p-strong markup--strong"><em class="markup--p-em markup--em"> </em></strong>Sochi
talks, only Russia, Turkey, Iran, the Syrian regime, and a discredited
part of the Syrian opposition did participate. In the UN-sponsored talks
in Geneva, the United States and Europe are involved. I can’t see the
US accepting an agreement that does not stipulate the withdrawal of all
foreign troops that entered Syria after 2011. In other words, the US
would say, “We are willing to leave Syria provided that Iranian forces
leave it as well.” That’s why the US is currently sticking to the region
east of the Euphrates. Washington’s message to the Russians is: “We
will leave Syria to you if you get it rid of the Iranians, otherwise we
won’t.”</p><figure name="cf80" id="cf80" class="graf-after--p graf--figure graf"><div class="aspectRatioPlaceholder is-locked"></div><figcaption class="imageCaption">Rouhani, Putin and Erdogan shaking hands in Sochi (November 2017) / Photo: Kremlin (Creative Commons)</figcaption></figure><h4 name="e531" id="e531" class="graf--h4 graf-after--figure graf"><strong class="markup--h4-strong markup--strong">Trump’s
view of the conflict is different from Obama’s. He is trying to isolate
Iran and has recognised Jerusalem as capital of the Israeli state. Why
are their policies different and what implication will Trump’s policy
have for the region?</strong></h4><p name="103c" id="103c" class="graf--p graf-after--h4 graf">There
are different issues here. When it comes to Israel, Trump is catering
to a specific audience: the Evangelicals and other Christian Zionists,
who constituted a large part of the Republican’s constituency under Bush
and are still a major part of Trump’s voter base. Mike Pence, the US
Vice President, is representative of this segment. He is outbidding even
his own boss in pro-Israeli discourse. Conversely, there is no
consensus on this issue within the wider US establishment. Even some
people in Trump’s entourage were not happy with his stance on Jerusalem,
which is very ideological. The only issue on which there is a consensus
in the administration is a tough attitude towards Iran, but this does
not even include scrapping the nuclear agreement.</p><h4 name="acc0" id="acc0" class="graf--h4 graf-after--p graf"><strong class="markup--h4-strong markup--strong">Does the Saudi regime still play any decisive role in the Syrian conflict, especially with regard to Iran?</strong></h4><p name="8119" id="8119" class="graf--trailing graf-after--h4 graf graf--p">Trump
very much encouraged the Saudi rulers to escalate hostilities against
Iran. They have been very clumsy in the handling of episodes such as
that of putting pressure on Qatar or that of the forced resignation of
Lebanon’s Prime Minister, Saad Hariri, which both ended up in fiasco.
The Saudi rulers have no strategy of their own regarding Syria, they
align behind the United States. The remnants of the Syrian opposition
that are linked to them have been very much weakened. Thus Riyadh’s
overall leverage in Syria is much weakened. Its main concern is to
contain Iran and roll it back, and for that they can only rely on
Washington.</p><div class="">###</div><div class=""><br class=""></div></div></div></section></div></div></div>
</div>
<div class="">
</div>
</div><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Feb 21, 2018, at 2:55 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss <<a href="mailto:peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net" class="">peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div class="">I for some reason can not access the page, but of what value is what Achcar has to say in relation to the war in Syria not being over. I’ve been saying that for some time, based upon the many voices out there who do not support war and have been saying it for some time. <br class=""><br class="">We, some of us, read the NYT’s, Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg News because we know true information generally exists within the pages for “business interests.” Does Achcar have anything more to say than these publications?<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">On Feb 21, 2018, at 12:46, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss <<a href="mailto:peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net" class="">peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a>> wrote:<br class=""><br class="">But what’s wrong with this account of the current situation? <<a href="https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmedium.com%2Fstories-soas%2Fthe-war-is-far-from-being-over-in-syria-17937139ac29&data=02%7C01%7C%7Ce372dc2c989b4aa5629308d5796c6fac%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636548428987579836&sdata=Xs5hCFd72VOxwS5GpCtv1pSFwJ4MvJot%2FDNdYrU%2F8qg%3D&reserved=0" class="">https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmedium.com%2Fstories-soas%2Fthe-war-is-far-from-being-over-in-syria-17937139ac29&data=02%7C01%7C%7Ce372dc2c989b4aa5629308d5796c6fac%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636548428987579836&sdata=Xs5hCFd72VOxwS5GpCtv1pSFwJ4MvJot%2FDNdYrU%2F8qg%3D&reserved=0</a>>.<br class=""><br class="">Achcar’s character’s not at stake: the truth of what he says is.<br class=""><br class="">...omne verum, a quocumque dicatur [even by a sick joke and a demented fraud], est a spiritu sancto sicut ab infundente naturale lumen et movente ad intelligendum et loquendum veritatem...<br class=""><br class="">"Every true thing, by whomever spoken, comes from the holy spirit as bestowing the natural light and moving us to understanding and speaking the truth” (Aquinas, ST IaIIae.q.109.a1ad1)<br class=""><br class="">So is it true?<br class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">On Feb 21, 2018, at 2:12 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss <<a href="mailto:peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net" class="">peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a>> wrote:<br class=""><br class="">I began writing this book right after Obama/Clinton/KillerKoh murdered Ghadafy and laughed about it. But towards the end of this book I deal with Syria in the Chapter against Responsibility to Protect/Humanitarian Intervention and in the Conclusion. Achcar is a sick joke and a demented fraud! Fab.<br class="">Clarity Press, Atlanta 2013, 212 pp., $ 18.95. <br class=""><br class="">This book tells the story of what happened, why it happened and what went wrong between the United States and Libya from a perspective of a professor of international law. Among the U.S. Empire’s serving international law professors, Francis A. Boyle is an exception among American international law professors, because he offers his legal advice for government of states that are the victims of Western aggression. He has been opposing unlawful policies of states with his only available “weapon”: international law. He could be described as a defender of the downtrodden of the current international system such as the Palestinian people, Libya under Muammar al Gaddafi and others. Beyond that, he has contributed a great deal to the advancement of international law by, inter alia, drafting the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989. <br class="">Since the early 1980s, Boyle visited Libya numerous times and advised the government on international legal cases. He convinced Gaddafi to sue the United States and the United Kingdom at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) over the Lockerbie bombing allegations. Before this lawsuit was filed, U. S. President Bush Sr. ordered the Sixth Fleet off the coast of Libya to carry out hostile maneuvers in preparation of another illegal attack as was done by his predecessor Ronald Reagan. After Boyle filed these two lawsuits at the ICJ, Bush ordered U. S. warships to stand down. Boyle also tried to support Gaddafi during the U.S./NATO war of 2011 but to no avail. Gaddafi fought and died for Libya, defending his country against the West like his hero Omar Mukthar had done against the Italian colonizers.<br class=""><br class="">Francis A. Boyle is a leading American expert in international law that he teaches at the University of Illinois, Campaign. He is also an author of numerous books on American foreign policy, international law and the foundations of the world order. He served on the Board of Director of Amnesty International and as an adviser to the Palestinian Delegation to the Middle East peace negotiations from 1991 to 1993. This delegation was headed by the highly respected Dr. Haidar Abdel-Shafi. Boyle was not responsible, however, for Yasser Arafat’s decision to secretly negotiate with Israel in Oslo behind the back of the Palestinian delegation. He bears thus no responsibility for the resulting “Declaration of Principles”, for which the Palestinian people have been paying since then a terrible price. <br class=""><br class="">In his book, Francis A. Boyle relates the history of U. S. foreign policy towards Libya, starting with the Reagan administration in 1981 till the U.S./NATO war that led to the overthrow of Col. Gaddafi. Before going into nuts and bolts, Boyle criticizes the American political establishment and explains why U. S. domestic and international policies are in a malaise. The reason, as stated by him, lies in the mindset of the American political and intellectual establishment that according to him is strongly influenced by Thomas Hobbes. Although he admits to differences between the views of American lawyers and those of political scientists, the author submits “that both groups essentially endorse [a] Hobbist perspective on the world of international relations and domestic affairs”. This commonly shared Hobbism “has become responsible for many of the major crimes, blunders, and tragedies of contemporary American foreign policy decision-making”. (p.19)<br class=""><br class="">According to Boyle, Hobbesian power politics contradicts several of the most fundamental principles upon which the United States is apparently founded: the inalienable rights of the individual, peoples’ self-determination, the sovereign equality and independence of states, non-interventionism, respect of international law and organizations, and the peaceful settlement of international disputes. Although various U. S. administrations “tried to live up to these principles” the net result has been a “counterproductive creation of a series of unmitigated disasters” (p. 30) for the U. S. One of the greatest mistakes has been the subversion of the entire post-World War II international and legal order that the United States helped to construct in 1945. I think that the Bush warriors and the U. S. power elite do not think that their policy was a disaster.<br class=""><br class="">The author accuses in particular the Reagan and the Bush junior administrations’ policy of double standards. They often “resort to legalistic subterfuges by pleading principles of international law in order to disguise their realpolitik foreign policy decisions”. (p. 31) Although the rules of international law are not a blueprint for reaching all policy objectives, they can still serve as a guideline for decision-makers what they should avoid running into troubles, writes Boyle. <br class=""><br class="">Boyle’s critic of the American foreign policy towards Libya is based on his functionalist, Fullerian, and anti-Hobbesian framework of analysis for international law and organizations. In two chapters, the author describes the series of conflicts between the U. S. and the Libyan leader over the Gulf of Sidra and the allegations of international terrorism made by the U. S. against Libya during the Reagan presidency. Chapter four contains a description of the Lockerbie bombing allegations and the legal dispute by the U. S. and the United Kingdom against Libya over it. The policies of the subsequent U. S. administrations, beginning with Bush senior, Clinton to Bush junior, which aimed at the control of the Libyan oil fields, so Boyle. <br class=""><br class="">In 2011, according to Boyle, the neoliberal Obama administration took over Libya’s oil fields under the pretext of the so-called Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine, illustrating its fraudulent manipulation of international humanitarian law. He debunks not only R2P but also its predecessor “humanitarian intervention” (Serbia) with the standard criteria of international law as an excuse to overthrow unpopular governments in order to replace them with imported U. S. puppets like in Afghanistan or in Kosovo. He argues that all the wars started under a humanitarian pretext resulted in humanitarian catastrophes.<br class=""><br class="">The author doubts whether the U. S. and NATO will be able to establish a puppet regime in Libya because of “significant residual support for Gaddafi and his Green Revolution” and of the highly volatile political and military situation throughout the country as the killing of the U. S. ambassador in Benghazi has shown. “All the U. S./NATO really care about in Libya is its continued free flow of oil from Eastern Libya organized around Benghazi.” (p.155) The rest of the country can disintegrate into the Sahara as far as the U. S./NATO is concerned. According to Boyle, Obama uses the R2P doctrine in order to destabilize Syria and overthrow the Assad Family regime.<br class=""><br class="">Boyle even goes so far as claiming that R2P has been used by powerful Western countries to justify wanton military aggression and military occupation of weak countries in the South. This schema is based on racism because the aggression was carried out by “white” people from the North against “colored” people from the South. History teaches us indeed that great powers do not use military force for humanitarian reasons. The U. S. and its major allies have been behind most of the humanitarian atrocities in the modern world. (p. 156) Humanitarian interventionism is only used in a mere “propagandistic sense”. (p. 159) <br class=""><br class="">The World Court has already rejected R2P/Humanitarian Intervention twice and so did the UN General assembly. Western powers claimed “that there existed supposed principles of customary international law that permitted them to engage in the unilateral threat and use of military force against other states, peoples, and regions of the world. In particular, these alleged ‘principles’ included the so-called doctrines of intervention, protection, and self-help.” (p. 161) These supposed doctrines (R2P/Humanitarian Intervention) were unanimously rejected by the International Court of Justice. The author counters R2P with the rule of law. This doctrine is for him nothing more than “imperialist propaganda for wars of aggression in the name of human rights”. (p. 166) For Boyle, the U. S. and NATO form “the Axis of Genocide”. In this chapter, Boyle gave a damning indictment of the R2P doctrine. Some human rights organizations around the world should rethink their policy of being cheerleaders of a doctrine that serves not the people but only Western neo-imperialism. <br class=""><br class="">A detailed analysis on the 2011 U. S./NATO war on Libya is given in chapter six. Since 9/11 the U. S. and its allies in Europe and the Middle East have engaged in “unlimited imperialism” and a “global warfare” against Arab, Muslim and African states in order to steal their hydrocarbon resources. (p. 176) “Libya 2011 was a Nuremberg crime against peace perpetrated by the United States, France and Britain that was aided and abetted and facilitated by the NATO Alliance and its other member states.” (p. 185) Accomplice in this international crime was the Arab League.<br class=""><br class="">The book is a scathing critic of modern Western imperialist policy, especially in its Islamophobic and racist version against the Muslim world that might constitute the only force that has the potential to defeat Western unlimited imperialism.<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">Francis A. Boyle<br class="">Law Building<br class="">504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.<br class="">Champaign, IL 61820 USA<br class="">217-333-7954 (phone)<br class="">217-244-1478 (fax)<br class="">(personal comments only)<br class=""><br class="">From: Boyle, Francis A <br class="">Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2018 12:59 PM<br class="">To: Peace-discuss List (<a href="mailto:peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net" class="">peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a>) <<a href="mailto:peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net" class="">peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a>><br class="">Subject: FW: Francis A. Boyle, Destroying Libya and World Order<br class=""><br class="">Achcar is a warmongering lunatic who supported Obama exterminating 50,000+ Libyans and 500,000+ Syrians, He has no credibility on anything. If you want to waste your time reading him, go ahead. Fab.<br class=""><br class=""><br class="">Francis A. Boyle<br class="">Law Building<br class="">504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.<br class="">Champaign, IL 61820 USA<br class="">217-333-7954 (phone)<br class="">217-244-1478 (fax)<br class="">(personal comments only)<br class=""><br class="">Feed: Peace Palace Library » International law news<br class="">Posted on: Thursday, May 16, 2013 8:00 AM<br class="">Author: Ingrid Kost<br class="">Subject: Francis A. Boyle, Destroying Libya and World Order<br class=""><br class="">This book tells the story of what happened, why it happened and what went wrong between the United States and Libya from a perspective of a professor of international law.<br class=""><br class="">By Ludwig Watzal<br class=""><br class="">Source: MWC News<br class=""><br class=""><br class="">View article...<br class=""><br class="">_______________________________________________<br class="">Peace-discuss mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net" class="">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a><br class="">https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace-discuss&data=02%7C01%7C%7Ce372dc2c989b4aa5629308d5796c6fac%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636548428987579836&sdata=UpjkuUGxNDQL7%2FZQmBmqKPgP4swq80EBREWXoDG46KU%3D&reserved=0<br class=""></blockquote><br class="">_______________________________________________<br class="">Peace-discuss mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net" class="">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a><br class="">https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace-discuss&data=02%7C01%7C%7Ce372dc2c989b4aa5629308d5796c6fac%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636548428987579836&sdata=UpjkuUGxNDQL7%2FZQmBmqKPgP4swq80EBREWXoDG46KU%3D&reserved=0<br class=""></blockquote><br class="">_______________________________________________<br class="">Peace-discuss mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net" class="">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a><br class="">https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss<br class=""></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>