Western media hails EU oil deal as potential game changer, despite admitting Al Qaeda holds oil fields.
It was recently reported that the European Union would be lifting its oil embargo on Syria, in an effort to help fund what it calls “rebels” operating there. In the Associated Press article, “EU lifts Syria oil embargo to bolster rebels,” it states:
“The European Union on Monday lifted its oil embargo on Syria to provide more economic support to the forces fighting to oust President Bashar Assad’s regime.
The decision will allow for crude exports from rebel-held territory, the import of oil and gas production technology, and investments in the Syrian oil industry, the EU said in a statement.”
A recent TIME article titled, “Syria’s Opposition Hopes to Win the War by Selling Oil,” reports:
“On paper, the E.U.’s idea seemed straightforward. Without an embargo, European companies can now legally begin importing barrels of oil directly from rebel groups, which have seized several oil fields in recent months, mostly around the eastern area of Deir Ezzor. That would provide the opposition with its first reliable source of income since the revolt erupted in Feb. 2011, and in theory hasten the downfall of Bashar Assad’s regime, by giving rebels the means to run skeletal local governments and consolidate their control. As part of the decision, the E.U. ministers also agreed to export technical equipment, insure the rebels’ shipments of oil and invest in the rebel oil businesses. Before the war, Syria earned about $3.6 billion a year exporting oil and gas to Europe, with its biggest customers in Germany and Italy, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.”
The BBC in their article, “EU eases Syria oil embargo to help opposition,” would mention which fields specifically the EU was planning on exploiting, stating:
“Syria’s main oilfields are in the eastern provinces of Deir al-Zour and Hassakeh, which both border Iraq.”
Just as in Libya, the West is wasting no time in despoiling Syria’s resources, with the pillaging beginning long before the war even reaches a definitive conclusion. But in addition to the overt looting of Syria’s resources, there is an added complication. TIME also reports:
“Still, analysts warn that the plan is deeply flawed-and in fact, that the E.U.’s decision could intensify the violence in Syria, by setting up a deadly competition for control of a resource that has languished amid two years of grinding civil war.”
And indeed, this “deadly competition” has already been taking place, as Al Qaeda’s al-Nusra front in Syria has been overrunning civilian populations, government positions, and local militias alike across Syria’s oil-rich region. In fact, TIME itself admits that:
“Complicating the issue is the fact that several of the rebel-held oil fields are believed to be under the control of Jabhat al-Nusra, which has declared its allegiance to al-Qaeda.”
TIME concedes that “several” oil fields are held by Al Qaeda, however, other reports across the Western media indicate most, if not all “rebel-held oil fields” are under Al Qaeda’s control.
In the New York Times article, “Islamist Rebels Create Dilemma on Syria Policy,” not only is it admitted that, “nowhere in rebel-controlled Syria is there a secular fighting force to speak of,” but it specifically mentions the oil fields the EU seeks to plunder:
“Elsewhere, they [al-Nusra] have seized government oil fields, put employees back to work and now profit from the crude they produce.”
“In the oil-rich provinces of Deir al-Zour and Hasaka, Nusra fighters have seized government oil fields, putting some under the control of tribal militias and running others themselves.”
In Reuters’ “Rebels battle with tribesmen over oil in Syria’s east,” it is admitted that:
“Islamist rebels are clashing with tribesmen in eastern Syria as struggles over the region’s oil facilities break out in the power vacuum left by civil war, activists said on Saturday.
One dispute over a stolen oil truck in the town of Masrib in the province of Deir al-Zor, which borders Iraq, set off a battle between tribesmen and fighters from the Nusra Front, an al-Qaeda linked rebel group, which left 37 killed, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.
The fighting, which started in late March and lasted 10 days, was part of a new pattern of conflict between tribal groups and the Nusra Front, said a report from the Observatory, a British-based group which opposes Syria’s government and draws information from a network of activists in the country.”
The Reuters article had forewarned:
“The incentive for disputes over lucrative resources may be increased by plans by the European Union to lift an embargo on Syrian oil, which would make it easier to sell.
The EU said this week it wants to allow Syria’s opposition to sell crude in an effort to tilt the balance of power towards the rebels, who are outgunned by Assad’s fighter planes and long range missiles.”
In other words, the EU’s announcement while lining the pockets of big-oil, is sowing increased chaos, violence, and death across oil-rich regions of Syria, compounding an already catastrophic humanitarian disaster of the West’s own creation. It is also clear that Al Qaeda’s al-Nusra front is the opposition the EU plans to buy the oil from, as there are no other “opposition” groups across the country to speak of according even to the New York Times, and more specifically, none besides al-Nusra holding significant ground in Syria’s oil fields.
The EU is openly preparing to do business directly with Al Qaeda, in a direct bid to bolster their control over territory they now occupy, and to overthrow the secular government of Syria in an unprecedented sectarian bloodbath. While many may claim the EU’s policy is merely yet another manifestation of the corruption and incompetence that are hallmarks of the failed supranational bloc, it was revealed as early as 2007 that the West sought to intentionally arm and fund sectarian extremists, including Al Qaeda, to overthrow the Syrian government in just such a sectarian bloodbath.
In 2007 – a full 4 years before the 2011 “Arab Spring” would begin – Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh in his New Yorker article titled, “The Redirection: Is the Administration’s new policy benefiting our enemies in the war on terrorism?” would state specifically (emphasis added):
“To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has cooperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.”
Clearly then, it is no accident that Al Qaeda has the weapons and cash to dominate the so-called “opposition,” nor a mystery as to how they’ve managed to seize much of Syria’s oil fields. It is also no accident that these very terrorists now stand to gain immensely by selling stolen oil to the European Union, in a bid to further increase their strength, capabilities, and reach, in an otherwise so-far unsuccessful bid to overthrow the Syrian government.
The EU and their US and British allies, now have yet another deep scar that will permanently disfigure their reputation, legitimacy, and international standing ad infinitum. For the people of the West, it is imperative that they identify the corporate-financier interests truly driving this conspiracy against the Syrian people and both boycott and permanently replace these interests. If not, they will inevitably, and in many cases already are, turning their attention, exploitation, and rackets inward onto their own.