Imperial Hypocrisy

Discussion
1

http://lewrockwell.com/buchanan/buchanan313.html

The Unraveling of Sykes-Picot
by Patrick J. Buchanan
Recently by Patrick J. Buchanan: The Spectator President

The thrice-promised land it has been called.

It is that land north of Mecca and Medina and south of Anatolia, between the Mediterranean Sea and the Persian Gulf.

In 1915 – that year of Gallipoli, which forced the resignation of First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill – Britain, to win Arab support for its war against the Ottoman Turks, committed, in the McMahon Agreement, to the independence of these lands under Arab rule.
It was for this that Lawrence of Arabia and the Arabs fought.

In November 1917, however, one month before Gen. Allenby led his army into Jerusalem, Lord Balfour, in a letter to Baron Rothschild, declared that His Majesty's government now looked with favor upon the creation on these same lands of a national homeland for the Jewish people.

Between these clashing commitments there had been struck in 1916 a secret deal between Britain's Mark Sykes and France's Francois Georges-Picot. With the silent approval of czarist Russia, which had been promised Istanbul, these lands were subdivided and placed under British and French rule.

France got Syria and Lebanon. Britain took Transjordan, Palestine and Iraq, and carved out Kuwait.

Vladimir Lenin discovered the Sykes-Picot treaty in the czar's archives and published it, so the world might see what the Great War was truly all about. Sykes-Picot proved impossible to reconcile with Woodrow Wilson's declaration that he and the allies – the British, French, Italian, Russian and Japanese empires – were all fighting "to make the world safe for democracy."

Imperial hypocrisy stood naked and exposed.

Wilson's idealistic Fourteen Points, announced early in 1918, were crafted to recapture the moral high ground. Yet it was out of the implementation of Sykes-Picot that so much Arab hostility and hatred would come – and from which today's Middle East emerged.

Nine decades on, the Sykes-Picot map of the Middle East seems about to undergo revision, and a new map, its borders drawn in blood, emerge, along the lines of what H.G. Wells called the "natural borders" of mankind.

"There is a natural and necessary political map of the world," Wells wrote, "which transcends" these artificial states, and this natural map of mankind would see nations established on the basis of language, culture, creed, race and tribe. The natural map of the Middle East has begun to assert itself.

Syria is disintegrating, with Alawite Shia fighting Sunni, Christians siding with Damascus, Druze divided, and Kurds looking to break free and unite with their kinfolk in Turkey, Iraq and Iran. Their dream: a Kurdistani nation rooted in a common ethnic identity.

Shia Hezbollah controls the south of Lebanon, and with Shia Iran is supporting the Shia-led army and regime of Bashar Assad.

Together, they are carving out a sub-nation from Damascus to Homs to the Mediterranean. The east and north of Syria could be lost to the Sunni rebels and the Al-Nusra Front, an ally of al-Qaida.

Sectarian war is now spilling over into Lebanon.

Iraq, too, seems to be disintegrating. The Kurdish enclave in the north is acting like an independent nation, cutting oil deals with Ankara.

Sunni Anbar in the west is supporting Sunni rebels across the border in Syria. And the Shia regime in Baghdad is being scourged by Sunni terror that could reignite the civil-sectarian war of 2006-2007, this time without Gen. Petraeus' U.S. troops to negotiate a truce or tamp it down.

Sunni Turkey is home to 15 million Kurds and 15 million Shia.

And its prime minister's role as middle man between Qatari and Saudi arms shipments and Syria's Sunni rebels is unappreciated by his own people.

Seeing the Shia crescent – Hezbollah in Lebanon, Assad's Syria, Nuri al-Maliki's Iraq, the Ayatollah's Iran – imperiled by the potential loss of its Syrian linchpin, Tehran and Hezbollah seem willing to risk far more in this Syrian war than does the Sunni coalition of Saudis, Qataris and Turks.

Who dares, wins.

Though the Turks have a 400,000-man, NATO-equipped army, a population three times that of Syria and an economy 12 times as large, and they are, with the Israelis, the strongest nations in the region, they appear to want the Americans to deal with their problem.

President Obama is to be commended for resisting neocon and liberal interventionist clamors to get us into yet another open-ended war. For we have no vital interest in Assad's overthrow.

We have lived with him and his father for 40 years. And what did our intervention in Libya to oust Moammar Gadhafi produce but a failed state, the Benghazi atrocity, and the spread of al-Qaida into Mali and Niger?

Why should Americans die for a Sunni triumph in Syria? At best, we might bring about a new Muslim Brotherhood regime in Damascus, as in Cairo. At worst, we could get a privileged sanctuary for that al-Qaida affiliate, the Al-Nusra Front.

As the Sykes-Picot borders disappear and the nations created by the mapmakers of Paris in 1919-1920 disintegrate, a Muslim Thirty Years' War may be breaking out in the thrice-promised land
It is not, and it should not become, America's war.
May 28, 2013
Patrick J. Buchanan [send him mail] is co-founder and editor of The American Conservative. He is also the author of seven books, including Where the Right Went Wrong, and Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War. His latest book is Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025? See his website.

2

A good history lesson, but Pat Buchanan's analysis is all about power politics. He never once considers the rights and freedoms of the people actually living in Syria, who have been victimized by an oppressive dictatorship and denied basic political freedoms for decades.

  I recently heard a commentator noting that the main thing preventing the rebels from overthrowing the Assad regime in Syria is the regime's airpower (which is clearly being used to commit aggression by bombing civilian areas). The commentator outlined how this advantage could easily be neutralized simply by destroying the regime's airfields, something which could be done remotely without even entering Syrian airspace, as the Israeli government has previously demonstrated in attacking Syrian installations.

  That analysis suggests a course of action that seems to me to be in keeping with the Non-Aggression Principle and minimizing harm, and which I would personally support. The U.S. government (or the Israeli government, or the Turkish government, or the French government, or any power with the capacity and willpower to act) could simply publicly announce, and make every effort to communicate to the Syrian public, that the regime's airfields will be attacked and destroyed on such-and-such a date, and that although the goal will be to target only the airfields themselves and avoid any casualties or damage of civilian-owned assets, people are advised to avoid the sites on that date, with those living nearby encouraged to take steps such as boarding their windows and staying away from home for the day. Even if this action were taken by a government which funded its action with money stolen from taxpayers (as would almost certainly be the case), I think it would be preferable to the status quo, when one considers the continuing loss of life and perpetuation of tyranny that is enabled by allowing the Syrian conflict to drag on without significant outside assistance to the rebels. Certainly it is possible that the overthrow of the Assad regime could result in a Muslim fundamentalist government or regime taking power, but that is speculation, not certainty. What is certain is that oppression and tyranny are in effect now which morally speaking have no right to exist, and which those subject to these conditions, as well as others seeking to help them, have every moral right to end by force. If a new tyranny should arise, those responsible should be held accountable and combated only if and when they become the aggressors; the welfare of the Syrian people should not be held hostage against the mere possibility of such an outcome. Therefore I would support a responsible campaign to destroy the Assad regime's airfields, and keep them inoperable for the duration of the conflict.

  This is not a Libertarian position and I am not speaking here as a Libertarian Party official, but as an individual. I think the LP's positions and pronouncements should strive to reflect the consensus view within the libertarian movement of how the Non-Aggression Principle applies to particular situations, and right now that consensus view seems to be that military intervention by governments outside of the jurisdictions over which those governments are generally recognized as exercising legitimate sway are not to be condoned, especially not in the case of the U.S. government.

Love & Liberty,
                               ((( starchild )))

3

Wall Street Journal published an article last Saturday which should give pause to outsiders viewing the bloody conflict as a people's rebellion -- that is, if outsiders acknowledge the business class as being people too. The business class apparently support Assad. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323528404578453043883699474.html

Additionally, the conflict is an internal sectarian struggle for power. Whether sectarian, economic, or ideological, an internal struggle should be left to sort itself out, without outsider intervention. Picture the Syrians bombing Northern installations in order to level the playing field in favor of the South; General Lee might have welcomed the assistance.

To me the non-aggression principle means stay the heck out of other people's business unless you personally are attacked.

Marcy

4

Marcy,

  "The business class apparently support Assad" -- if true, I see that more as evidence of the culpability and co-option of the "business class" in Syria than as evidence that the Assad regime should be let off the hook or has any kind of moral equivalency with those fighting to overthrow it.

  I don't believe that the Non-Aggression Principle means "stay the heck out of other people's business unless you personally are attacked." By that logic, we should avoid getting involved if our friends or family members are attacked. They are, after all, separate individuals who don't belong to us. In the ultimate scheme of things, they may well be equally or even less morally deserving than many of the people being oppressed by the regime in Syria, notwithstanding the facts that we may be geographically distant from those people and don't know them personally.

  To me, the Non-Aggression Principle suggests that a person seeking to behave morally will not merely abstain from personally committing aggression, but will actively oppose aggression even when not personally victimized by it. The logic supporting this interpretation is reflected in a quote from one of the figures involved in the fight against the former apartheid regime in South Africa:

“If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.”
— Bishop Desmond Tutu

Love & Liberty,
                                ((( starchild )))

5

It is more likely the dominant "police class" while the opposition is another "police-class" having turned the civil dissension into a blood bath.

Wiki:
In July 2011, army defectors declared the formation of the Free Syrian Army and began forming fighting units. The opposition is dominated by Sunni Muslims,

________________________________
From: Starchild <sfdreamer@...>
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 5:40 PM
Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Imperial Hypocrisy

Marcy,

"The business class apparently support Assad" -- if true, I see that more as evidence of the culpability and co-option of the "business class" in Syria than as evidence that the Assad regime should be let off the hook or has any kind of moral equivalency with those fighting to overthrow it.

I don't believe that the Non-Aggression Principle means "stay the heck out of other people's business unless you personally are attacked." By that logic, we should avoid getting involved if our friends or family members are attacked. They are, after all, separate individuals who don't belong to us. In the ultimate scheme of things, they may well be equally or even less morally deserving than many of the people being oppressed by the regime in Syria, notwithstanding the facts that we may be geographically distant from those people and don't know them personally.

To me, the Non-Aggression Principle suggests that a person seeking to behave morally will not merely abstain from personally committing aggression, but will actively oppose aggression even when not personally victimized by it. The logic supporting this interpretation is reflected in a quote from one of the figures involved in the fight against the former apartheid regime in South Africa:

“If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.”
— Bishop Desmond Tutu

Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))

Wall Street Journal published an article last Saturday which should give pause to outsiders viewing the bloody conflict as a people's rebellion -- that is, if outsiders acknowledge the business class as being people too. The business class apparently support Assad. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323528404578453043883699474.html

Additionally, the conflict is an internal sectarian struggle for power. Whether sectarian, economic, or ideological, an internal struggle should be left to sort itself out, without outsider intervention. Picture the Syrians bombing Northern installations in order to level the playing field in favor of the South; General Lee might have welcomed the assistance.

To me the non-aggression principle means stay the heck out of other people's business unless you personally are attacked.

Marcy

A good history lesson, but Pat Buchanan's analysis is all about power politics. He never once considers the rights and freedoms of the people actually living in Syria, who have been victimized by an oppressive dictatorship and denied basic political freedoms for decades.

I recently heard a commentator noting that the main thing preventing the rebels from overthrowing the Assad regime in Syria is the regime's airpower (which is clearly being used to commit aggression by bombing civilian areas). The commentator outlined how this advantage could easily be neutralized simply by destroying the regime's airfields, something which could be done remotely without even entering Syrian airspace, as the Israeli government has previously demonstrated in attacking Syrian installations.

That analysis suggests a course of action that seems to me to be in keeping with the Non-Aggression Principle and minimizing harm, and which I would personally support. The U.S. government (or the Israeli government, or the Turkish government, or the French government, or any power with the capacity and willpower to act) could simply publicly announce, and make every effort to communicate to the Syrian public, that the regime's airfields will be attacked and destroyed on such-and-such a date, and that although the goal will be to target only the airfields themselves and avoid any casualties or damage of civilian-owned assets, people are advised to avoid the sites on that date, with those living nearby encouraged to take steps such as boarding their windows and staying away from home for the day. Even if this action were taken by a government which funded its action with money stolen from taxpayers (as would almost certainly be the case), I think

it would be preferable to the status quo, when one considers the continuing loss of life and perpetuation of tyranny that is enabled by allowing the Syrian conflict to drag on without significant outside assistance to the rebels. Certainly it is possible that the overthrow of the Assad regime could result in a Muslim fundamentalist government or regime taking power, but that is speculation, not certainty. What is certain is that oppression and tyranny are in effect now which morally speaking have no right to exist, and which those subject to these conditions, as well as others seeking to help them, have every moral right to end by force. If a new tyranny should arise, those responsible should be held accountable and combated only if and when they become the aggressors; the welfare of the Syrian people should not be held hostage against the mere possibility of such an outcome. Therefore I would support a responsible campaign to destroy the Assad
regime's airfields, and keep them inoperable for the duration of the conflict.

6

Hi Starchild,

Like I said, it depends whether one views the business class as people too or not. I do not view one set of people more entitled to co-opt situations than another set of people.

The question of interfering when one views injustice or suffering is a difficult one. Which works for you -- a social worker interfering with unconventional parents? police breaking down a door because minors might be smoking pot inside? taxing me because it is unjust that my neighbor does not have as nice a house as mine? and again, Syria bombing Northern installations because they happen to side with the South? Whose story to believe, especially from miles away?

If I witness a member of my family or a friend being attacked, yes I would indeed interfere. A straight forward situation. Not the same as my trying to interpret who is attacking who thousands of miles away in a culture I know nothing about.

Marcy

7

Marcy,

  Of course people in business are still people! But claims that the Syrian business community tends to be pro-Assad -- which I haven't yet seen actually documented -- should not necessarily be taken at face value. The regime is still in power, and people running businesses may be understandably reluctant to risk official wrath by giving their true opinions. By "co-option", I was alluding to the fact that many Syrian business owners may have long ago made their accommodations with the regime and become entangled with it as the cost of doing business in that country. Business interests are also historically cautious and change-adverse.

  On the larger question, sometimes I think the facts speak loudly enough for themselves that reasonable people can make some educated guesses:

  A regime which is widely known for its poor human rights record (see e.g. http://www.hrw.org/world-report-2012/world-report-2012-syria ) and falls low on international freedom indexes (see e.g. http://www.freetheworld.com/countrydata.php?country=C123 ), led by a dictator who has reigned for the past 13 years after inheriting power from his late father who himself came to power in a coup in 1971, faces an armed uprising. Who gets the benefit of the doubt, the regime or those fighting to topple it? Hmm... Difficult question for libertarians? I should think not!

  Calling for intervention against a government and in support of those fighting a government, as in Syria, is a far cry from calling for government intervention against ordinary individuals, as in your other three examples below.

Love & Liberty,
                                 ((( starchild )))