‘West tries to sabotage Syria talks’

Press TV has conducted an interview with Sukant Chandan, independent filmmaker from London, to discuss the crisis in Syria.

What follows is an approximate transcription of the interview.

Press TV: Ahead of Geneva II, a lot of observers are talking about the obstacles in the way of peace. Do you agree that the extremist groups are the main obstacles and do you agree with the comments by our guest [Richard Weitz], saying that the nature of modern warfare means the US government, the extremists and all fighters are, you know, even if we do not say equally, are to some extent responsible for the civilian casualties.

Chandan: I think the primary responsibility has to be lain at the doorstep of the governments in London, Paris and Washington, who have much more than any other political entity on the planet have been shown to have absolute invested interest in regime change against Syria for many years if not decades or generations.

If we see the situation that has taken place since the emergence of the Arab sting or NATO’s Arab spring clean perhaps in the region, we can see that these death squads or controllers wrongly called rebels or even revolutionaries by some misguided brothers and sisters are absolutely conducive and facilitate the main strategies for the governments in London, Paris and Washington in this era and in the era going forward for the next two to three decades.

The importance of the next three decades is this that these governments recognize that this is the time scale, window of opportunity, to close down the rising ascendance of the Global South, particularly alliances with India, China and Russia.

What they have done through the Arab sting is to degrade strategically those alliances that are taking place… the slogan is very much not just divide and rule, which is still going on as we can clearly see with Syria and Libya, but it is divide and ruin, divide and destroy.

Because if the West cannot have it, so goes the rationale of the so-called West, then we will never allow Russia and China and India and other BRICS and allied Global South nations to have a functioning, stable, bilateral and multilateral alliance with these countries.

If we are going to understand the extremist and it is a false dichotomy between the so-called moderates and extremists, they are working hand in glove; If we are going to put the responsibility at extremists it has to be London, Paris and Washington governments who through their proxy governments in the [Persian] Gulf states are fueling the extremists in lead-up to Geneva II, in an attempt to sabotage anything positive coming out of Geneva II.

Press TV: Let us talk about the US position on Iran’s participation in Geneva II; we heard that it has put preconditions for Iran’s participation and Russia said that decision was counterproductive. Why do you think the US made this decision and do you think that it is vital and key for Iran to take part in Geneva II?

Chandan: …It remains clearly the case that Iran is the main obstacle to total, medieval, gulfy and Western hegemony and control of the region.

Iran is very much important player in creating stability in the region and indeed it is the resistance axis led by Iran, including Syria, Lebanon, at least the resistance movement Hezbollah there, and also despite all the quite profound contradictions the Iraqi government, are the forces which are delivering any semblance of security, strategy for the people of the region.

All other forces, nearly all other forces, excluding Algeria, who is still on the crosses of Western regime change, and we see increasing funny games in relation to Algeria who remains one of the important resistance Arab states in the region, but nevertheless, all the other entities are absolutely fueling destabilization, terrorism, death squads, etc.

Just in response to Mr. Weitz, in terms of the Western powers having the hands-off approach, a six-month bombing campaign by NATO against Libya does not seem very hands-off to me and a few other observers.

The reason I bring Libya is because Libya was an absolute, fundamental regime change and scorched strategy off the Western powers to facilitate the continuing destabilization of the region and that is why they want through their [Persian] Gulf allies to continue extremism in Syria.

Thomas Friedman from Jamestown think thank made a very important analysis in relation to the compromises and the machinations with the Islamic Republic of Iran. Basically his point was that the West have achieved all that they could achieve through the Arab sting and they are going to fry bigger fish with China and Russia with the pivot to Asia.

The West have achieved a lot of strategic aims, but that was ground to a whole; their rolling strategic and tactical actions in the region through Hezbollah entering the resistance in Syria through Qusayr, through the changes in Egypt in removing itself from the regime-change kind of alliance in the region, and the Russians and the Chinese putting an absolute redline to it.

So now because of the Syrian patriots who have stopped the extremists’ rolling kind of achievement and then rolling that back, the West was forced into some kind of negotiation in compromise with the Islamic Republic, but as can be seen in stopping Iran to go to Geneva II, they would continue to play the deadly funny games in the region.

Press TV: The question of what is going to happen to Syria in the future, who is going to replace President Bashar al-Assad and in Geneva II, will the Syrian people be given the opportunity and you know the task of choosing their own leaders themselves without the interference of any other country.

There are concerns that those countries who are funding a lot of the militia groups and who are not saying anything about the crimes that these groups are committing, may want to decide for the Syrian people.

Chandan: …[the idea] that the fear in the Western capitals is Bashar Assad’s government is replaced by something a lot more hostile is again I think deeply problematic as well as deeply problematic Mr. Weitz making out that somehow the West are just neutral arbitrators watching this big mess that the Brown skin people are going through in the region.

Libya again is an example that they much prefer a collapsed state run by crazy death squads, then they would a unitary, cohesive state… which was Jamahiriya under Muammar Gaddafi.

To Geneva II, I think what really has happened is that we have [one] at the negotiating table that is the Syrian patriots that what we have [one] in the battlefield. So it is a reflection of the balance of forces in Syria and some of the region.

Obviously what the West will try to sabotage time again at strategy is formalized, compromised with the Ba’athist government in Syria that recognizes they have actually fought this violent conspiracy against this what was a very peaceful and descent – one of the most peaceful co-existence between sects and fates in the region into a totally disastrous, bloody situation.

They want this bloody situation to perpetuate itself, and they are doing this… Western capitals would much rather prefer Brown skin people to achieve their own violent strategic aims then for putting Western boots on the ground itself, which creates a whole gamut of complications and problems for Western capitals.

…once they have cut their losses and achieve what they have in the region, they are discussing much more important things, which is smashing the leadership of the Global South, whose capital is in Beijing.

The Syrian people have an absolute right and they have shown absolute steadfastness and formidable steadfastness in defending the gains of their revolution in Syria and they have every right to be there Geneva II, but London, Paris and Washington, the last thing that they would ever respect is the absolute, God-given and political rights of the people of the Global South.