Sheldon Richman: No One Has Appointed the US to Be the World’s Policeman
TEHRAN
(FNA)- Prominent American author and political scientist Sheldon
Richman underlined his opposition to a US strike on Syria, saying even
if the US could prove its allegations about the use of chemical weapons
by the Damascus government, there would still be no way to justify a
U.S. military action against the crisis-hit Mideast country.
“For some time, American presidents have assumed the prerogative to
launch or enter wars unilaterally and imperialistically. This has been
done to achieve the geopolitical and economic objectives of a ruling
elite. Congress, shirking its responsibility, has refused to stand in
the way, but that is because most members of Congress share the ruling
agenda. The results have been tragic for the foreign victims and for the
American people,” said Richman in an interview with Fars News Agency.
Sheldon Richman is the former editor of The Freeman, a magazine
published by The Foundation for Economic Education. His articles on
foreign policy issues have appeared on a number of international
publications including Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Chicago
Tribune, USA Today, Christian Science Monitor and Counterpunch. He is
currently the vice president of The Future of Freedom Foundation, a
Washington-based think tank that promotes peace and friendly relations
between the world nations.
According to Richman, President Obama does not have the popular
support at home and abroad to wage a war against Syria, but the
imperialist nature of the U.S. government might propel him to realize
the pernicious agenda of a new military adventure in the region.
What follows is the text of FNA’s interview with Sheldon Richman.
Q: The United States is inching close to going into a new war
in the Middle East. They have resorted to the excuse that Syria has used
chemical weapons against its own civilians. How much realistic and
honest is this claim? Can it be a logical justification for launching a
military strike against a sovereign, independent state?
A: I am no expert, and I certainly have not been to the scene, but the
reports from McClatchy Newspapers, Gareth Porter, and others give
reason to doubt the U.S. government’s case. However, even if Assad used
those weapons, it would not justify a U.S. military strike. No one
appointed the United States the world’s policeman. There is no basis in
international law or in the U.S. Constitution for a strike.
Q: It seems that U.S. President Barack Obama has retreated
from his unwavering position for attacking Syria by seeking legal
authorization for the military strike from the Congress. What does this
strategic setback portend for the United States and the Middle East?
Does it mean that the United States is not powerful enough to set off
for a new military adventure in the region?
A: I think Obama looked at public opinion polls and the results in the
British Parliament, and saw that he had no support. He also has no
backing from the UN or NATO. So he needs cover from Congress. What
happens now? If Congress votes to authorize the strike, he will go
ahead. If it votes no, Obama has problems. He says he has the authority
to strike anyway, but politically it will look bad to defy the Congress.
NBC now quotes White House sources saying no strike would be made if
Congress refuses to authorize it. This is a reversal of what was
reported previously.
Q: From what we know about the U.S. Congress and the fact that
it’s dominated by pro-Israeli lawmakers, what’s your prediction about
their possible decision about President Obama’s petition for war on
Syria? Will they yield to the Israeli pressures and finally give the
green light for a U.S. attack on Syria?
A: Israel’s leading American lobby, AIPAC, is working hard to win
support in Congress for a strike. For that and other reasons, Congress
will most likely vote yes. I hope I am wrong. The delay and lack of
support are setbacks for the war hawks, but they may well get their way
in the end.
Q: It’s indisputable that a U.S. war against Syria will bring
the whole world into a state of turmoil and unrest. Even now that the
U.S. is pondering upon the military action, sectarian violence is taking
in Iraq, Turkey and claiming more lives inside Syria as the extremist
Al-Qaeda forces are going through fire and water to destabilize the
region. What’s your viewpoint about the current situation in the Middle
East?
A: We are living with the consequences bequeathed us by the British
and French imperialists after World War I, when the victors carved up
much of the Middle East, drawing arbitrary lines in the creation of
artificial states, and laid the groundwork for the state of Israel in
Palestine. A reset was inevitable sooner or later, and it is now
happening. Unfortunately, Islam has not been allowed to find its way
into the modern world without violent interference from the West. There
is no smooth way forward at this point. The best thing would be for the
United States to leave the region to its own devices. It should “do no
harm.” America should stop propping up corrupt monarchies and should
stop enabling the Israeli occupation of Palestine. With its record, it
cannot be an honest broker. It is time to quit the region.
Q: Several U.S. Congressmen have warned that any military
action on Syria without the approval of the House will be illegal and
unconstitutional. The U.S. has embarked on several such illegal and
unconstitutional actions before. Why does the United States allow itself
to attack sovereign nations unilaterally and without legal grounds? Is
this a characteristic feature of the imperial power the United States is
the pioneer thereof?
A: For some time, American presidents have assumed the prerogative to
launch or enter wars unilaterally and imperialistically. This has been
done to achieve the geopolitical and economic objectives of a ruling
elite. Congress, shirking its responsibility, has refused to stand in
the way, but that is because most members of Congress share the ruling
agenda. The results have been tragic for the foreign victims and for the
American people.
Q: The UN Security Council hasn’t authorized a military strike
against Syria. This means that there isn’t an international consensus
over attacking Syria. However, the United States is mulling over taking a
unilateral action. Won’t a military strike against Syria by the United
States be a violation of international law?
A: A U.S. attack, which would come in the absence of a threat against
the United States, would indeed violate international law.
Unfortunately, there is no one to hold the Obama regime accountable.
Q: The United States government regularly reprimands other
countries for their violation of human rights. However, these countries
are mostly those with which the U.S. is not allied. As a result,
Washington turns a blind eye to the grave violation of human rights in
Saudi Arabia or Bahrain, and is now silent about the unspeakable
atrocities the Al-Qaeda and Saudi-backed terrorists are committing in
Syria and against the supporters of President Assad. How is it possible
to justify this dualistic approach?
A: It is not possible to justify it. The stench of hypocrisy has long
emanated from Washington, D.C. While the U.S. has demanded that Syria
eliminate its stockpile of chemical weapons, it will not demand the same
of Israel, which never ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention. It
also has stockpiles of biological and nuclear weapons. Another U.S. ally
in the region, Egypt, has also not ratified the CWC.
Q: President Obama seems to lack a public support for going
into war with Syria, and that is the reason why he was so feverish to
launch the attack even before the UN chemical weapons inspectors could
release their report. So, can we conclude that the alleged use of
chemical weapons in Ghouta by the government was simply an unreal excuse
and that President Obama had intentions other than “humanitarian
concerns” for attacking Syria?
A: Absolutely. This is not about humanitarian concerns at all. It is a
way to strike at Iran and Russia, which challenge U.S.-Israeli hegemony
in the region. In the past the U.S. has blocked peace talks between
Israel and Syria. It backs brutal governments in the Middle East. It has
supported Israel’s onslaughts against the Palestinians and Lebanese. It
supported Saddam Hussein’s use of chemical weapons against the Iranians
and the Kurds in the 1980s. It has unclean hands.
Interview by Kourosh Ziabari
