An interview with Filip Martens

An interview with Filip Martens

Ex: http://www.granews.info/content/interview-filip-martens

 

GRA : Western media confidently say that the fall of the current Syrian regime is inevitable. In your opinion, how well founded this prediction is, and is there some political power that can bring order to this situation?

F.M.:  In the beginning of the Syrian conflict, there were obviously sincere demonstrations for political reforms. And president al-Assad did listen to them: he started a political proces of reforms, which resulted in a new constitution, parliamentary elections and a new government that is composed of all political tendencies in Syria. Moreover, presidential elections will take place in 2014 and the new Syrian constitution clearly states that the president can remain just two terms.

The terrorists consist of jihadists and by Saudi Arabia and Qatar financed mercenaries from Turkey, Libanon, Jordanië, Libya, Chechnya, Yemen, Afghanistan, … They are supported by Syrian Muslim Brothers and by American, British, French, Turkish and Qatarese Special Forces. In addition, criminal gangs abuse the insecurity to rob and plunder. So once again the Western media play a game of disinformation.

Only since about two months, the Syrian army strikes back hard. And of course with extreme caution in order to spare the civilian population as much as possible. First there was the agreement with the Arab League in which the Syrian goverment promised to withdraw the army from the cities and to respect a truce. The Syrian goverment has kept its word, but the terrorists only abused this truce by immediately infiltrating the cities where the Syrian army withdrew.

Than there was the mediation attempt by the U.N. and the observers. Here happened the same. The Syrian army kept itself as good as possible to the armistice, but again the terrorists only abused the situation to sow terror, to infiltrate and – with help of the West, the Gulf Cooperation Countries (GCC) and Turkey – to spread disinformation and lies. This was followed by the attack in Damascus on 18th July 2012, which killed some senior officials of the Syrian state. And afterwards, there was the withdrawal of the U.N. observers.

After all this and after 18 months of practicing patience, the Syrian army decided to eradicate terrorism. Now the army rules firmly and the terrorists are on the run. Daraa, Homs en Damascus are largely safe. In Aleppo, the terrorists are also driven out and this city will be again under full control of the Syrian authorities very soon. Of course, there are still serious incidents, like bombings and shootings. But this absolutely doesn’t mean that the jihadists and mercenaries still occupy entire neighbourhoods and terrorise the civilians. These acts of violence are the last convulsions of the terrorists. Wherever the terrorists resurface, they are immediately eradicated by the Syrian army, that can rely on the strong support of the people.

Syria has long and porous borders, that make it impossible to practice full control. That is why the terrorists infiltrate the country from the neighbouring countries Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq. And that is also why the terror attacks will continue for a long while. The infiltration of jihadists and mercenaries through the borders is a tedious but limited problem. The only thing which they are still capable of are bombings and terrorist acts, but acquiring control over a region or neighbourhood has become impossible. After the victory in Aleppo the army will control entire Syria again.

However, the terrorists have about endless financial and logistical resources from the West, Turkey and a few Arab countries. For instance, the financial resources of Qatar and Saudi Arabia are inexhaustible thanks to the oil dollars. But the question is what purpose these inexhaustible financial resources and foreign support for the terrorists can serve when they absolutely have no sympathy at all from the Syrian people?

Therefore a solution can only come from the Syrians themselves. And in this, the interfaith ‘musalahah’ movement, which was born a few months ago, offers hope. This Arab word means ‘reconciliation’. It was an initiative of Syrian civilians in order to find a solution for the crisis in their country. This means that the musalahah movement arose neither from the Western sponsored ‘opposition’, nor the regime of al-Assad. The origin of the musalahah movement is only the Syrian people. In crucial places, like Homs, already hundreds of young people chose such a conciliatory internal dialogue. The basic vision of this movement is that Syria is one family, where there is no place for violence and sectarianism, where the different religious groups live together in peace. That is the desire of the silent majority of the Syrian people.

Russia, China and Iran can play a positive role in this, because they are the only powers that the Syrian people trust. But I don’t see any alternative for president al-Assad: any other ‘solution’ can only create chaos in Syria.

GRA: How likely is a forceful U.S. intervention in the Syrian conflict and attempt to violently overthrow the regime of Bashar al-Assad (or the U.S. will keep a distance and will not dare to risk)? Under circumstances of such a possibility, what consequences it will bring to America itself?

F.M.:  To understand what is happening in Syria, it is good to consult Zbigniew Brzezinski. His books and articles are directing Washington’s foreign policy. According to Brzezinski the control of Eurasia is crucial to the U.S. to remain the world leader. Eurasia counts 75% of the world population, produces 60% of the world’s wealth and has 75% of the world’s energy resources.

Brzezinski calls the critical zone in Eurasia the ‘New Global Balkans’. This area extends from the Suez Canal to the western borders of China and from Central-Russia to the Indian Ocean. It is this area that the U.S. wants to control. That is why the U.S. invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as the American attempts to destabilize Pakistan (through bombings directed by the CIA and the ‘export’ of the Taliban from Afghanistan to Pakistan’s North West Frontier).

A problem for the U.S. is that since 1979 Iran arose as a non-Western regional power. We must bear in mind that the finger of the alliance between the West and the GCC is pointed at Hezbollah and Iran. And that Syria is the link between Hezbolllah and Iran. The demise of the al-Assad regime in Syria is crucial in order to isolate Iran and also in order to disable Lebanon and eventually also Iran. Without Syria’s support and the supply routes from Iran to Lebanon, Hezbollah will no longer be able to play a dominant role in Lebanon and Iran’s regional influence will greatly decrease. Also will Russia lose an important partner and its only military base in the Mediterranean Sea. And last but not least, after a future collapse of Iran it will be possible to create similar ethnic and religious wars in Russia.

A direct military intervention of the U.S. in Syria would put the entire region in flames, but most important of all is that the U.S. is not capable of doing this. Therefore the preference goes to a kind of ‘intervention light’. This works through subcontracting: local militias, allied armies and private firms. This was tried out successfully for the first time in Libya. The deployment of American troops is limited to Special Forces, because the U.S. is increasingly dependent on its allies.

Russia and China vetoed any kind of militarily aggression against Syria in the U.N. and there is no reason why they would change their mind. And because of this strong Russian and Chinese resistance the U.S. won’t attack Syria without U.N. permission (like in the case of Iraq). The U.S. is now using a persiflage on their ‘weapons of mass destruction’ propaganda, which they used against Iraq, by trying to convince the U.N. with ‘chemical weapons’ propaganda in order to find a reason to attack Syria. But there won’t be an American attack on Syria before the presidential elections in the U.S. (which take place in November).

In my opinion, the American public will not pay attention to a possible invasion of Syria. Why not? It’s just another country attacked by their government.

 

GRA: How do you assess Russia's position in this issue? Is Russia able to compromise, yielding to the wiles of the West (for example, the proposal of Hillary Clinton to establish demilitarized zone), despite the fact, that Russia has already received a very difficult experience in the situation in Libya?

F.M. : Russia, China, Iran and Hezbollah are a Eurasian resistance block against the Atlantist arrogance. Russia has the potential and the resources to confront this challenge. It has an acute awareness of what is historically going on in the world and a deep consciousness of its own eschatological mission. Therefore Russia can play a central role in this.

It is useless to try to compromise with universalist fanatics. Russia already compromised when it abstained from blocking the Libyan intervention in the U.N. President Medvedev committed a real crime against Libya and helped to initiate the Western supported interventions and color revolutions in the Arab world. The West was behind the Libyan insurgency, that destroyed this rich country and killed tens of thousands of Libyans. Also the murder of Gaddafi was partly Medvedev’s responsibility. Russia has blood on its hands for allowing Libya to be bombed back into prehistoric times. But all the people around Medvedev were liberals. Russia should have defended Libya, because the fall of Libya was a defeat for Russia. A possible fall of Syria will be another defeat. Russia should present itself internationally as the country that votes “Njet!” to war in the U.N.

Fortunately, the mistake committed in Libya has not been repeated in the Syrian conflict. Syria has a much higher strategic value for Russia’s security and stability. With Putin back in power, Russia’s position is much better. He is consistent in his support for president Bashar al-Assad. The explosive situation in Syria is the most important geopolitical threat for Russia at this moment. All the liberals and pro-Atlantist forces are against Putin. Russia needs Putin to make a fist against the West on foreign policy, especially because new destabilization by secessionist movements (supported by Saudi Arabia and the U.S.) arose in the Caucasus.

And the Europeans should realise that the world is broader than only the U.S. and Europe. Syria develops fast its economical relations with other major powers and area’s: Russia, China, India, South America, South Africa, Belarus, etc. Russia (and also China) will be happy to take the place of the Europeans as trade partner. The only ones who suffer the economic sanctions against Syria and have a lot to lose there, are the Europeans themselves. However, they should know better, because a similar dirty game is going on against Iran already for years. European oil companies lost very lucrative contracts in Iran because of silly economic sanctions inspired by the U.S.

GRA: How, in your opinion, will deploy the situation after the overthrow of Bashar Assad? According to the information, disseminated through the media, there are already dozens of catastrophic scenarios.

F.M.: The destabilization of the Mediterranean region and the Near East threatens the Russian naval presence in the Mediterranean and also paves the way for new color revolutions, uprisings and insurgencies in Iran, Central Asia and even Russia. So, the fall of the al-Assad regime and the destruction of Syria would make it easier to destabilize other countries in Eurasia.

In a destabilized Syria, the Muslim Brotherhood can arise as political power. Another possibility is the creation on the Syrian territory of small and weak states, based on sectarian identities, which can easily be manipulated by the West.

Millions of people would suffer from these violent political changes, the further disintegration of the Near East and ethnic and religious wars in Eurasia. The final objective of the alliance between the U.S., Israel, the GCC, Turkey and Western Europe is the destruction of Iran, the downfall of Russia and the containment of China, Pakistan and India.

GRA: One possible scenario is the territorial division of Syria into three parts. Chagry Erhan, Director of the Center of Strategic Research of the European peoples, believes that the Baath regime, that is being removed from power, will try to create a new state on the basis of belonging to a madhhab through Latakia-Tartus, what can lead to a decision of destruction or assimilation of the Sunni population. In addition, such a step (creation of a new state) can undertake also Kurds. And here raises a difficult question - how to prevent the partition of the country? Erhan believes that once the government will intervene in the process by violent means, this will lead to more bloodshed. How likely do you think, this scenario is?

F. M.: A madhhab represents the entire school of thought of a particular mujtahid Imam, together with many first-rank scholars that came after him and checked his evidences and refined his work. The scenario above is about the division of Syria in an Alawite state, a Kurdish state and a Sunni state. It’s an idea that mainly lives in Atlantist circles. But Erhan is totally wrong: in the past two months, the terrorists were almost complety defeated by the Syrian army.

Geopolitically, Syria is situated in a central and crucial region, which is intersected by 2 important fault lines: one religious (Shia vs. Sunni) and two ethnic (Turks vs. Kurds and Turks vs. Alawites). Turkey, the GCC and the jihadists are mainly Sunni. Iran and the Alawites minority are Shia. And after the demise of Saddam Hussein, the Shia also came to power in Iraq, which narrowed the GCC’s sphere of influence. Saudi Arabia and Qatar want to regain this dominant position at all costs by turning Syria into a kind of vassal state in order to tackle Iran.

The Turks will do everything to avoid another Kurdish state – there is already one in Northern Iraq – because they have a large Kurdish minority of their own. And an Alawite state can cooperate with their Alevi brothers in Turkey. Syria already now supports the Kurdish PKK in Turkey, because of the Turkish support for the terrorists in Syria. All this means that also Turkey can become a victim of the balkanization of the Near East in the future.

This balkanization is a necessary condition for Western geopolitics. It is certainly not far-fetched, because it is similar to the Yinon Plan from 1982. This aimed to break the existing states in the Near East and to create mini states, hostile to each other and controlled by the West.