Dear Mr Eustice
The Syrian Conflict
I am writing to you, as an
ordinary British citizen, because of my very great concern regarding recent
events in Syria, and in particular the Khan Sheikhoun explosion and responses
to it.
1.
American Response
The recent chemical
explosion, which the American administration has designated a chemical attack
by President Assad, has precipitated a sequence of events whose overt
explanations lack credibility, and whose underlying motivations remain hidden
from ordinary citizens such as myself.
This sequence of events has the potential to lead to very frightening
consequences.
The chemical explosion
which took place at Khan Sheikhoun on or about 4th April 2017 was
such as to demand immediate investigation by qualified independent
experts. Mechanisms for this are in
place, and full cooperation for such an exercise has been offered by both the
Russian and the Syrian administrations.
The US administration apparently made no attempt to set this in motion,
or to await the results of an assessment before springing into action.
Experts are on record as
saying that the US attack on the Syrian air base would have taken considerable
planning – planning which had to have started some time before the alleged
chemical attack.
The air attack by American
Cruise missiles was clearly an act of war, illegal by all international standards,
representing as it does a unilateral invasion of a sovereign state. Never the
less, American commentators persist in referring to the Syrian conflict as a
‘civil war’.
The fact that the alleged
chemical attack, militarily ineffective and reputationally destructive, took
place on the eve of potentially game-changing peace talks at a time when the
Syrian Government was in a winning position, makes it demonstrably improbable
that an intelligent leader (which Assad clearly is) would carry out such a
catastrophic venture.
President Trump’s decision
to launch the counter-attack effectively in the presence of the Chinese leader
seems to indicate a political agenda which has little regard for the welfare or
security of either US citizens or indeed the desperately suffering Syrian
people.
Subsequently the US
administration has reaffirmed its commitment to regime-change in Syria,
although the true reason for this ambition has not been explained; there must
be a presumption that the US wish to exercise a dominating control over the
region for their own ends. If that
presumption is correct, it would indicate an arrogance, and a disregard for
ordinary people, which would be at odds with the values embedded in the
American constitution.
As to the likelihood that
the American explanation of the chemical explosion is the correct one, this has
been called into question by a number of impeccable sources. The independent
consensus (by which I mean independent of the influence of the American
administration) seems to be that the Russian explanation of the event is the
more likely one.
I refer you to an
interview with former British Ambassador to Syria, Peter Ford, who gave this
interview to Sky News :
…and further, to this
interview with American Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, an army veteran who served
in Iraq and has recently spent time in Syria:
There are several other
sources of independent opinion, from independent journalists who are not
associated with Western backed groups such as White Helmets, and from
interviews conducted on the ground in Syria, who universally cast doubt on the
White House narrative, or at the very least, the wisdom or legality of the
American counterattack
2.
British Response
Sir Michael Fallon was
extremely quick to identify with the American position, without any substantial
evidence for that position. If there had been significant evidence in support
of that narrative, there would have been no reason to do other than make it
public.
Mr Boris Johnson took the
extraordinary step of pulling out of planned talks in Moscow, at a time when
surely the most productive activity, no matter who caused the explosion in Khan
Sheikhoun, would be dialogue. One is
tempted to wonder what the British Government’s agenda is here.
Most of us have painful
memories of previous occasions when we as a nation have chosen to back the
Americans in their forays into other countries.
The results have almost never produced positive outcomes, and have
sometimes led to considerable loss of life, and life changing injuries, amongst
our service personnel, without detectable benefit to this country. In some
cases we are still coping with the aftermath several years later.
It would be as well to
remember that Harold Wilson decided not to become involved in the disastrous Viet
Nam debacle, with no negative effect on the much prized ‘special relationship’.
3.
In Summary
President Trump’s
impetuous and illegal attack on a sovereign country is in danger of setting off
an escalation in Syria which could prove uncontrollable, all in the interests
of regime-change. Were the dialogue for peace to continue, without a spurious
hidden agenda, with a view to proceeding to free and fair elections in Syria
(which Assad is already agreeable to) the people of Syria could take their own
decision regarding the future of their country.
The interventions of the
West in the affairs of the Middle East has almost always ended in tears, going
right back to the imposition of the puppet Shah of Iran in place of a stable
democratically elected Government, engineered by the CIA in 1953. The echoes of
that interference are still reverberating today.
With memories of the Iraq
invasion still fresh in our minds, I do not believe the British public would be
sympathetic towards a Government once more offering unquestioning support to an
aggressive White House. The consequences
of such support would doubtless increase the risk of terrorist attacks in our Country.
I would ask you as my MP
to question the Ministers involved, and ask for an unequivocal explanation for
their stance: I am certain that I am not the only Briton with these concerns.
At a time when we are struggling with the complications arising out of Brexit,
further involvement in this American adventure would be a very negative step,
with potentially very frightening consequences. Further, if our ‘special
relationship’ means anything more than words, please urge our Government to act
as a restraining influence on the US administration.
I look forward to a timely
response from you, as events are moving at a frightening pace,
Yours sincerely
Tim Thomson
