The USA-European intervention in the situation in Syria has a hidden agenda for energy purposes. 美欧干预叙利亚局势有着不可告人的能源目的
The USA-European intervention in the situation in Syria has a hidden agenda for energy purposes.
Interview with Aymeric Chauprade (translated from Chinese by Alfred Vierling) Paris,
Recently, the French intervention in the situation in Syria was very active. France actively intervened, what considerations play a role behind this attitude? Do they question the feasibility of these actions? Will the use of chemical weapons become a casus belli against Syria for the Western countries? With these questions, the reporter interviewed the French geopolitical expert Chauprade. He is the person in charge of the publication of the “French geopolitical Review, but also the founder of the site of the French” Realpolitik TV “and he is teaching in various countries, universities and military schools.
Reporter: France was the first of the Western countries to recognize the Syrian opposition “National Union”, and was the first to agree that their organisation stationed in Western countries their “Ambassador”. Why did France actively intervene in the situation in Syria?
Chauprade: First come energy factors. In 2010, Qatar and Saudi Arabia came to Syria, hoping to build oil and gas pipelines leading to the Mediterranean in this country, so that in the future energy supply to the EU, could bypass the Strait of Hormuz and the Suez Canal. This request was rejected by Bashar’s regime, because Syrian ally Russia believes that the EU will reduce its dependence on Russian gas. For years, Russia has been the EU’s natural gas supplier and takes that as an important asset in its diplomatic relations with the EU. France and the United States, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and other countries jointly intervene in the situation in Syria, because these external intervention forces try to open their energy delivery channel in Syria.
Syria’s offshore natural gas energy is also attracting the United States and Europe. According to The Near East Policy Research Institute in Washington, Syria may have the largest natural gas reserves of the Eastern Mediterranean region. The United States and Europe’s intervention in the situation in Syria, as was the case in Libya, has a sinister energy purposes.
In addition, there are Lebanon factors. France is the traditional influencial power in Lebanon, but the Syrian government is around by Hezbollah in Lebanon.. France firmly believes that if they can overthrow the Bashar regime, it will be able to maintain and expand its influence in Lebanon.
Reporter: How do you evaluate France’s Syria policy?
Chauprade: France’s Syria policy is wrong.
First, Its Syrian policy in France, is tuned to the impact of the two countries of Qatar and Saudi Arabia. The two countries in recent years tbecame France’s “priority target” in its Middle East diplomacy. Their energy and funds convinced the French government of this priority setting.
In my opinion, Qatar and Saudi Arabia are the countries with the darkest of fundamentalism in the Middle East countries. For France to approach these two countries, is actually very dangerous, because the absolute majority of French domestic Muslim population of 6,000,000, may now be moderate, but on the one hand, while France is to fighting annihilating in African countries and now in Mali Al Qaeda forces, it is indirectly supporting in Syria these very Al Qaeda forces.
This is really crazy.
Between Syria, France and the United States there is a competition of influence.. France has taken in the recent past aggressive measures against Syria, while the United States was behind the scenes quietly watching the secret operation. Now, the French are losing this competition with the United States. For example, the chairman of the Syrian opposition’s “National Committee’ was a French professor at the University of France actively fostering Syrian opposition candidates; The United States succeeded in forcing the Syrian National Committee to agree in joining the Syrian opposition” National Union ” and by that move it wiped out the French candidate.
Thirdly, due to the intervention of these external forces, the Syrian conflict is no longer a civil war, but an “intervention war. In view of Russia’s support for the regime of Bashar, the active intervention of the French, is bound to cause harm to the Franco-Russian relations.
Reporter: Hollande said to take measures to protect the Syrian opposition control of “liberated areas”, is that a feasable move?
Chauprade: France in order to protect the so-called Syria “liberated zone” it is necessary to establish a no-fly zone in Syria, which need to get the consent of the UN Security Council. Russia opposes the Western countries , so it is not possible to obtain the authorization of the Security Council.
If NATO countries put aside the Security Council to go in Alleingang, there is no doubt that they are fully capable of establishing a no-fly zone in Syria. However, the consequences of doing so will be difficult to predict, and Russia is likely to make a surprising move. Imagine if a Russian aircraft carrier appears in Syrian waters and its fighter jets fly into the no-fly zone, will the NATO countries have the “courage” to shoot down a Russian fighter jet?
Reporter: Will chemical weapons become a casus belli for thee Western countries, trickering a military intervention in the Syrian situation? ? The United States, France and NATO has threatened once Bashar is using chemical Weapons, the international community will “immediately respond”.
Chauprade: From historical experience, once the Western countries are turning around chemical weapons or the build-up of weapons of mass destruction , it is not a good fore-token. Prior to the second Gulf War, the United States and Britain, claimed that the regime of Saddam Hussein has had weapons of mass destruction and used it as a pretext to attack Iraq; However, after the event, they did not find any evidence that these weapons exist. Well, if some of these countries had to lie in the past, they will have much difficulty to obtain the full trust of the international community.
I personally think that the Western countries touting that the Bashar regime might use chemical weapons, do only indicate that they are likely being secretly prepared to act against the Bashar regime.
Reporter: Syrian armed opposition is now almost in complete control of the the adjacent northern border with Turkey, and adjacent to the eastern border with Iraq. In the past few days, they have been shooting down aircraft of the government forces, and began the siege of the capital Damascus. Would the Bashar regime quickly collapse ?
Chauprade: There is no doubt that the Syrian armed opposition on the battlefield has made some progress, it is because they get funding, weapons, and intelligence support from Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United States and Europe.
On the other hand, the Bashar regime is indeed in trouble. Bashar belongs to the Alawits, that is in Syria’s history an oppressed people , they will fight to death to keep being inpower. Western countries which hope that Alawits are going to accept democratic reform, are mislead by an illusion. The Bashar regime also get the support of Russia. If there is no direct military intervention by the Western countries, its fall is not for tomorrow.
Reporter: How do you predict the outcome of the conflict in Syria?
Chauprade: I think that the conflict will subsist for a lonmg period. However, once the Bashar regime will collapse, Syria is likely to fall into division, because some ethnic minorities can hardlyo accept to live under the Sunni-muslims, counting for 80% of the Syrian population.
Finally, I would like to emphasize that the Alawites are a minority in Syria, accounted for only 10% of Syria’s population, they are likely to be massacred after the fall of the Bashar regime. Western countries, however, avoided to demand any guarantiees from the Syrian opposition for the afety of these minorities. From this perspective, is the claim by Western countries during the intervention, that is is due to guarantee human rights, just pure ideological propaganda.
Paris, December 7 , 2012
近来，法国在对叙利亚局势的干预中表现得异常活跃。法国的积极干预姿态背后有什么考量？法国的干预措施可行性如何？化学武器会成为西方国家对叙利亚 动武的“导火索”吗？带着这些问题，记者采访了法国地缘政治专家艾米力克·肖布拉德。肖布拉德是《法国地缘政治评论》刊物的负责人，也是法国“现实政治电 视”网站的创始人，并在多个国家的大学和军事学校任教。
肖 布拉德：首先是能源因素。2010年，卡塔尔和沙特阿拉伯向叙利亚提出，希望在该国建造通向地中海的石油和天然气管道，以便在未来对欧盟的能源供应中，可 以绕开霍尔木兹海峡和苏伊士运河。这一请求遭到巴沙尔的拒绝，因为叙利亚的盟国俄罗斯认为，欧盟会因此减少对俄罗斯天然气的依赖。多年来，俄罗斯一直将对 欧盟的天然气供应作为对欧外交的重要砝码。法国与美国、卡塔尔、沙特阿拉伯等国联合干预叙利亚局势，是因为这些外部干预势力试图在叙利亚打开能源输送通 道。
第 一，法国的叙利亚政策，受到卡塔尔和沙特阿拉伯两国的影响。这两个国家近年来成为法国在中东外交中的“优先对象”。他们利用能源和资金，对法国政府形成了 很大的说服力。我认为，卡塔尔和沙特阿拉伯是中东国家中原教旨主义色彩最为浓厚的国家，法国接近这两个国家，实际上是很危险的，因为法国国内600万穆斯 林人口中，温和派占绝对多数。法国一方面要在非洲国家马里北部清剿“基地”组织势力，另一方面又在叙利亚间接地支持“基地”组织势力，这真的很疯狂。
第 二，在叙利亚问题上，法国和美国之间存在着“影响力竞争”的问题。法国采取了冒进的措施冲锋在前，而美国却在幕后静观其变、暗中运作，法国正在输掉与美国 的这场竞争。例如，叙利亚反对派“全国委员会”主席加利温是法国一所大学的教授，是法国积极扶植的叙利亚反对派人选；但美国却成功迫使叙利亚“全国委员 会”同意加入叙利亚反对派“全国联盟”，通过此举打掉了法国的人选。
如 果北约国家抛开安理会单干，毫无疑问，他们是完全有能力在叙利亚设立禁飞区的。但是，此举的后果将很难预测，俄罗斯很可能会做出令人吃惊的举动。试想一 下，如果俄罗斯把航母开到叙利亚海域，让战斗机在北约国家的禁飞区飞来飞去，北约国家有“勇气”打下俄罗斯的战斗机吗？
肖 布拉德：从历史经验来看，一旦西方国家围绕化学武器、大规模杀伤武器造势，这就不是一个好的征兆。在第二次海湾战争之前，美英称萨达姆政权拥有大规模杀伤 性武器，并以此为由进攻伊拉克；然而，事后并没有找到这些武器存在的任何证据。一些有撒谎历史的国家，是很难获得国际社会完全信任的。我个人认为，西方国 家目前极力宣传巴沙尔政权可能会使用化学武器，这说明他们很可能正在暗中准备对巴沙尔政权有所动作。
另 一方面，巴沙尔政权确实陷入了困境。但是，巴沙尔所属的阿拉维派在叙利亚历史上是一个受到压迫的民族，他们会为保住政权死战到底。西方希望阿拉维派接受民 主改革，这完全是一种幻想。另外，巴沙尔政权还得到了俄罗斯的支持。如果没有西方国家的直接军事干预，巴沙尔政权垮台不是明天的事。