Idlib is bleeding. Radical Islamists, who lost the war in Syria, are trying to retain power in the country’s north-western province at the cost of civilian lives. This is the final obstacle to attaining peace in the country.

Brett McGurk, US Special Presidential Envoy to the Coalition fighting the Islamic State speaking at the American Institute of the Middle East, three years ago, said: Idlib Province is the largest Al-Qaeda safe haven. It borders with Turkey and it is Ankara whom we should talk to about it.

McGurk was as much right as he cut corners: he is perfectly aware how the Islamists found themselves in Idlib. It all began in 2011 with the attacks of Al-Qaeda terrorists on Syrian government forces which held the line in the northern part of the province next to Jisr ash-Shugur. The Syrian-Turkish border existed then only on paper. In fact, it was utterly permeable resembling a block of Swiss cheese. Uncontrolled crossing points were a common occurrence. The most important of which was located near the Turkish border town of Reyhanli. Over time, this porous border turned into a real transit camp, through which Islamic militants from all over the world penetrated into Syria. Moreover, loads of weapons were supplied via the ports of the Hatay Province, also on Turkish soil.

A year later, the US entered the frame under the CIA operation codenamed Timber Sycamore. The Americans, supported by the special services of Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar and Jordan, illegally sent military advisers, equipment and funds to Syria – with the consent of neither the Syrian government nor of any body of the international community. By 2013, Washington satisfying, inter alia, the wishes of Tel Aviv, gave the go-ahead for the supply of weapons to several thousand Islamic militants. The latter operated under the clear order of overthrowing the Syrian government.

Throughout this time we have been reading reports in Western media calling those Islamic militants ‘rebels’. It was clear to everyone, however, they were just abandoned villains planning to turn Syria into a theocratic state. They set up their training camp between Mount Zāwiya and the small town of Maarrat al-Nu’man, south of Idlib. From there, these atrocious jihadists penetrated into other parts of Syria.

In the following couple of years, 2014 and 2015, the Islamists, who by now possessed state-of-the-art weapons including anti-tank missile systems, pursued a hard-fought offensive on the province’s capital, the very city of Idlib, which was then controlled by the Syrian government forces. Alas Idlib fell. Damascus troops sustained losses. They retreated far inland. At this very moment, Bashar Al Assad sought military aid from Russia.

After the fall of the province’s major city, thousands of militants of the Islamist Army of Conquest aided by Turkey and the Gulf states advanced further, to Aleppo. They were stopped by the Syrian Army at great sacrifice of life. The turning point of the war occurred in late 2016 with the complete liberation of Aleppo from the armed gangs. The scattered militias made their way back to Idlib: first from eastern Aleppo, then from the Damascus suburbs of Ghouta, later from Yarmouk and Al-Hajar al-Aswad located further south, and finally from Daraa and Quneitra. All the survivors flocked to Idlib – groups of foreign mercenaries and a metley of local jihadists from the ranks of Al-Qaeda and Jabhat al-Nusra.

Meanwhile, a new bloody drama was unfolding in Idlib – a struggle for power between various gangs. The “moderate Syrian opposition”, closely connected with Turkey and the Gulf countries, started creating its own political structures – the “Salvation Government” with its own security services and police. Those “moderates” decided to establish a new command system to dismember the country and cut off Idlib from Syria in the future.  In turn, Jabhat al-Nusra jihadists, renamed by that time Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), suggested that the new territory be under their patronage. Nobody wanted to share power. Quite a natural thing, because at stake there was money, weapons, assistance from the allies, control over pivotal routes and border crossing points. By the beginning of 2019, HTS militants managed to resolve the conflict for their own benefit.

The US, Great Britain and Germany took a wait-and-see approach. As for Syria itself, its government troops had planned a military operation to liberate Idlib since the summer of 2018, but calls coming from the West “to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe” forced Assad to postpone the offensive. French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian made clear what Europe really feared. Many militants in Idlib have European countries’ citizenship. In case of a military operation, they would flee to Europe posing a threat to the entire continent. In this context, Le Drian confirmed McGurk’s words about Idlib’s becoming a haven for al-Qaeda’s international recruits.

At this point, we need to revisit Turkey’s role. Already a year ago, in September 2018, an agreement was reached within the Astana process on a ceasefire in Idlib coupled with the creation of a twenty-kilometre de-escalation zone. The Russian military police prepared humanitarian corridors for all those civilians wishing to leave the province. Moreover, under Turkish supervision all heavy weapons had to be taken away from the area.

Ankara had six months to fulfill its part of the deal. Things turned out in a different way. Before the Turkish military’s very eyes the HTS militants intruded the buffer zone with weapons consolidating their position. They increased the number of attacks across the dividing line, including the shelling of populated localities. The Russian Khmeimim military base in Latakia suffered drone attacks. But the Turkish military command on the ground condoning of the new militants’ intrusion turned into a boomerang: at the end jihadists attacked the stronghold of the Turkish Army itself, forcing the latter to ask for Russian air power assistance. Like the sorcerer’s apprentice from Goethe’s ballad, the perfidious Turks had to admit their blunder: Wrong I was in calling spirits, I avow, for I find them galling, cannot rule them now.

Obviously, the problem of Idlib requires an urgent solution. The situation is rapidly deteriorating. Both sides are already preparing for an offensive. The Syrian Army against the militants who took refuge in Idlib and the militants against the government troops’ positions. A compromise can be found only by means of joint action guaranteed under the Astana process parties with the involvement of those Western countries whose citizens are fighting in Syria on the side of jihadists. Then the question arises: does such a big number of players have enough political will to reach an understanding?

Sadly, as long as this issue remains unresolved, Idlib will maintain its status of the new-found haven for terrorists. In such a case, Syria will continue to be in the state of endless war.

As the statement of the special envoy was made against the background of preparation of Syrian army′s offensive to Idlib, it caused panic among leaders of the armed opposition located in the territory of the province. They accused de Mistura of “betrayal, “cooperation with the Russians” and incompetence.

Mustafa Naji, representative of the National Liberation Front (one of the most influential opposition groups operating in Idlib) very clearly formulated his dissatisfaction with the words of the diplomat. According to Naji, with his statement, the special envoy lent legitimacy to the offensive of the Syrian Army.

Unfortunately, there is practically no alternative to the military operation in Idlib. Terrorists located in the territory of the province intensified their attack on positions of the Syrian Army, using car bombs, drones, homemade projectiles and other explosive devices. Terrorists cynically hide behind the status of the de-escalation zone and deliberately provoke Damascus to violate those ceasefire agreements. In addition, internal conflicts between armed groups in the region continue, and civilians are often victimised.

The command of the US-led international coalition does not deny that Idlib is controlled by terrorists. Despite numerous statements of concern about a possible humanitarian disaster, after the first strikes by Syrian government forces on targets in the province, the Americans limited themselves to calling on Russian and Syrian Air Forces “to be more precise” on their strikes.

Armed opposition in Idlib should also not hope on Turkey’s protection. Ankara has repeatedly stated aggravating the situation in Idlib is not an option. At the same time, the units of the Free Syrian Army under Ankara′s auspices have already been evacuated from the territory of the province. Therefore the Turkish leadership considers the remaining armed groups in the troubled Syrian province as terrorist.

No one really expects that Washington or Ankara will support or approve the military operation in Idlib. It is most likely that the actions of the Syrian Army will be used to obtain political dividends, discredit Damascus, Moscow and Tehran and accuse President Assad of unleashing a “massacre”. In order to achieve these goals, both Turkey and the US seem ready to sacrifice the remnants of the so-called armed opposition.

In 2013, two years into the Syrian civil war, the “Syrian Civil Defence” is created in the UK as a non-governmental organization. This UK registered NGO is also known as White Helmets. “Protection and salvation of civilians in Syria” is the declared noble goal of the organization: “more than three thousand women and men who come from different parts of Syria, leaving their work as bakers, engineers, school teachers … They are the first to go where the bombs fall, searching for the victims of air strikes under the ruins of the destroyed buildings. This organization, which remains outside politics … is engaged in saving people in areas beyond the control of the Syrian government”.

In the past couple of years, the White Helmets received hefty awards from Western governments which have given excessive publicity to the work of this organization.

First comes the presentation of the Foundation’s reward “For the Correct Way of Life”. The sum of three million Swedish Crowns (approximately $350,000) was donated to the White Helmets “for working on practical and exemplary solutions of the most acute problems of our time”. Second comes the Franco-German Prize for Human Rights and the Rule of Law, sponsored by the respective countries’ Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

At the pinnacle of all these Western promotion activities is the award of the Oscar for best short documentary film in 2017 to the film White Helmets produced by the British director Orlando von Einsiedel.

But there is always the flip side. It may be hidden from the public, but it is existing. There are reasons to believe the White Helmets relish ties with the British special services. James Le Mezurier appears to be the author of the idea and the real founder of White Helmets. But who is Le Mezurier?

According to ‘The Truth Seeker’: Le Mesurier carries about him the inescapable whiff of Britain’s malign legacy and history of dirty wars, waged in Kenya, Aden, Ireland, Iraq, Libya, in other words wherever London’s blood-soaked foot has tread around the world. A product of Britain’s prestigious Royal Military Academy officer training at Sandhurst, he served in various UK military/NATO military deployments over the past three decades, specifically Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq and Lebanon (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=165418)

Naturally, the White Helmets HQ is located in London. And although it is officially stated that the organization exists due to crowd funding (voluntary fund-raising for ongoing projects), the main donor of White Helmets is the UK Foreign Office. By the end of 2016, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office had allocated 32 million pounds for training and equipment of the White Helmets.

The organization is headed by the wife of British billionaire Sosan Asfari, who is also the co-chairperson of the Executive Committee ″USA – Projects in the Middle East″. In this regard, another large donor is the US Agency for International Development (USAID), which finances various NGOs around the world. In April 2016, Mark Toner, US State Department representative confirmed that from 2013 the agency provided the White Helmets with at least $23 million. No wonder that there and then, when and where London and Washington need to organize a provocation, they use the White Helmets.

The ″Syrian Civil Defense″ already several years now has evolved into a structure with its own uniform, symbols and even vehicles. Now they have 119 centers throughout Syria – in Aleppo, Idlib, Latakia, Homs, Hamа and Damascus.

Roger Waters, one of the founders of the Pink Floyd rock band, during a recent speech in Spain called the White Helmets “an organization of fakes” engaged in “the production of propaganda for terrorists”. “Propaganda of the White Helmets encourages us to begin to persuade our governments to drop bombs on people in Syria,” the former leader of Pink Floyd added. Haaretz, the Israeli newspaper, reported his statements.

This organization is considered by many as the PR department of the Syrian branch of Al-Qaeda and the Front of Al-Nusra. For example, the White Helmets shared their HQ in the same building in eastern Aleppo with Al-Nusra. Their work is highly appreciated by terrorists in Syria. For example, Abdullah Mukhayisini, one of the leaders of the Syrian Al-Qaeda, the Djebhat al-Nusra, thanked the White Helmets for their hard work: “I do not call them Syrian Civil Defense, I call them mujahedeen in civilians, they are real mujahedeen, no different from those who are fighting in trenches or in bomb-carriers, there is no difference between them, and Allah will reward them. They fiercely fight.”

It is not surprising that the terrorists and the “Helmets” work closely on the propaganda front. Their “authors’” work consists of fake recordings of “atrocities of the Assad′s regime”. Even the layman can see that on the different shots from different places, the same people appear as victims and rescuers. After that, happy with themselves the White Helmets and very much alive and kicking “victims” take photos together. The next stage of this propaganda game is to spread them in the social media network. Nevertheless, the Western media is not confused that the “Helmets” were caught on fakes as many specialists recognize their videos as staged.

A modern hybrid information-psychological war presupposes a cynical disregard for truth, laws, and morality. The White Helmets follow these norms. They were repeatedly caught in lies, but they are needed in London and Washington as initiators of provocations, as a tool for creating fake reasons for the continuation of an armed conflict in Syria. The most vivid example of it became US, British and French missile strike in Syria on 14 April.

Global Research – a Canadian centre of globalization published the curious details of this attack. When Teresa May sent fighter-bomber Tornados to bomb Syria with the newest missiles manufactured by Lockheed Martin Corporation, she knew well how she helped her husband. Philip May is the head of Capital Group, a huge investment company. In this way, confidential information coming from the prime minister of Great Britain reaches Philip May. This insider’s information influences the value of joint stock shares of companies in which Capital Group invests.

Capital Group is a stockholder of thousands of shares of Lockheed Martin, the largest American military-industrial corporation. Philip May′s Capital Group has about 7% of this corporation (about seven billion pounds). When Teresa May ordered the British Armed Forces to bomb Syria with the newest missiles JASSM Lockheed Martin – Donald Trump called them ″ beautiful, new and smart″ – the shares′ price of company- producer (thus profit for Capital Group) went up at once. The May couple did not worry about the fact that this profit was made with Syrian blood.

Global Research calls this situation conflict of interest between Teresa and Philip. But why conflict? In deciding to bomb Syria, both sides got what they wanted: the prime minister wife: praise from Washington for the test of new missiles JASSM of Lockheed Martin, the husband: bonus from Capital Group. Reference to the British Parliament seemed irrelevant.

Αλεξανδρέττα 1939, Κύπρος 1974, Συρία 2018: Πάγιες Πρακτικές και Επιδιώξεις της Τουρκικής Εξωτερικής Πολιτικής

Η διάλεξη θα δωθεί στο Σπίτι της Κύπρου, Ξενοφώντος 2Α, στο κέντρο των Αθηνών (105 57). Την εποπτεία της διοργάνωσης της διάλεξης, η οποία αποτελεί την τρίτη του κύκλου διαλέξεων που πραγματοποιείται με στόχο την ανάδειξη θεμάτων εκπαιδευτικού, πολιτιστικού, ιστορικού και κοινωνικού ενδιαφέροντος που αφορούν τηνΚύπρο, έχει το Μορφωτικό Γραφείο της Κυπριακής Πρεσβείας στην Αθήνα.

Η διάλεξη εξετάζει τρία παραδείγματα της Τουρκικής Εξωτερικής Πολιτικής. Τα δύο πρώτα αφορούν ιστορικά τετελεσμένα (προσάρτηση Αλεξανδρέττας 1939, εισβολή στην Κύπρο 1974) ενώ το τρίτο αναφέρεται στην εν εξελίξει Τουρκική στρατιωτική επέμβαση στη Βόρεια Συρία – κατάληψη της Αφρίν (17 Μαρτίου 2018), προπυργίου της Συριακής Κουρδικής Πολιτοφυλακής.

Μέσα από την ενδελεχή εξέταση των τριών περιπτώσεων αναδεικνύονται οι πάγιες επεκτατικές Τουρκικές πρακτικές και επιδιώξεις εις βάρος γειτονικών χωρών. Οι παράλληλες τακτικές και πανομοιότυπες προφάσεις οι οποίες εφαρμόζονται αποδεικνύουν ότι η εξωτερική πολιτική της Άγκυρας είτε με Κεμαλική είτε με Ισλαμική κυβέρνηση διέπεται από πάγιες τακτικές και επιδιώξεις οι οποίες εις βάθος χρόνου στόχο έχουν την επέκταση της Τουρκικής επικυριαρχίας και εν τέλει κυριαρχίας στον περιβάλλοντα το Τουρκικό Νέο-Οθωμανικό κράτος γεωπολιτικό χώρο.

Εν όψει των προσφάτων καταιγιστικών εξελίξεων στην ταραχώδη περιοχή μας και ειδικότερα εις ότι αφορά τις πυραυλικές επιθέσεις των Δυτικών κατά της Συρίας με ορμητήριο μεταξύ άλλων και των Βρετανικών Βάσεων στην Κύπρο – και την κατόπιν εορτής ενημέρωση της οποίας έτυχε ο Πρόεδρος της Κυπριακής Δημοκρατίας (ΚΔ) από την Βρετανίδα Πρωθυπουργό – ο Δρ Γιώργος Λεβέντης θα προβεί και σε μια σύντομη ανάλυση του ρόλου και καθεστώτος των Βρετανικών Βάσεων όπως αυτός αποτυπώνεται στην Συνθήκη Εγκαθίδρυσης της ΚΔ. Το καθεστώς των Βρετανικών Βάσεων θα αντιπαραβληθεί με τις πρόνοιες του Διεθνούς Δικαίου με σχετικές αναφορές στον Καταστατικό Χαρτη του ΟΗΕ.

As an independent Cypriot think tank, we cannot help but remind the international community of striking similarities between the ongoing Turkish offensive in Northern Syria and the Turkish invasion of Northern Cyprus in the summer of 1974. Let us examine them one by one.

First, as the Orwellian motto goes: restatement of the obvious is the most important task of intelligent men: Both invasions cause tremendous suffering among civilians, hundreds if not thousands of casualties, thousands of civilians – Greek in the case of Cyprus 1974, Kurds in the current Syria invasion – are forced to flee, yet Ankara calls both peace operations! They make a disaster and they call it peace. Turkish troops in Cyprus 1974 committed atrocities: hundreds of Greek civilians were killed in cold blood, women raped and more than one thousand Greek Cypriots are still missing while the Turkish Armed Forces refuse access to their archives to ascertain the missing persons’ fate. To this day, Ankara names the Northern Cyprus Occupation Force a Peace Force. In the same time-honoured fashion, in an apparent attempt to mislead the whole world, Erdogan’s government codenamed his offensive in Northern Syria Operation Olive Branch.

Second, similar if not identical pretexts, are cited by Ankara in her attempt to ‘justify’ the invasion and occupation of foreign territory. Dubious, if not spurious, arguments of self defence and protection of Turkish minorities are being put forward: in the case of Cyprus: protection of the eighteen per cent Turkish Cypriot minority. In the case of Syria, the protection of the comparatively small Turkmen brethren. Let us remind ourselves that following the Cypriot coup of 15 July 1974, the putschist government in Nicosia declared at its first (and last) press conference that the ‘change of government is a purely Greek Cypriot affair’ adding importantly ‘the policy of new government is to seek a comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus problem through the established process of inter-communal political dialogue’. In other words no Turkish Cypriot was hurt by the Greek Cypriot coupists though the latter happily … killed a few hundred of their own kind in the fierce internecine war that engulfed Nicosia and Limassol.

In fact – this is the third striking similarity of the two expansionist Turkish operations – in 1974 the Turkish Air Force threw leaflets produced in a corrupt form of the Greek language (but still legible) whereby the Greek Cypriot civilian population was informed that the Turkish Armed Forces ‘are arriving to save them from the endless internecine war’. In an identical fashion the Turkish Air Force threw leaflets in Arabic and Kurdish informing the local population of their Olive Branch Operation. What a coincidence!

Last but not least, what is lurking behind all these ‘olive branch’ codenames of Turkish military ‘peace operations’ and all the rest of it?  What other than the notorious security zones as a means of expansion.

After the first Attila operation of 20 July 1974, in accordance with a relevant Security Council ceasefire resolution (22 July) a peace conference was convened between the UK (at the chair) Turkey, Greece in Geneva at the end of July. Turan Gunes, then Turkish Foreign Minister (known for his colourful personality and folksy behaviour) demanded that a security zone of sixteen kilometres be agreed beyond the Turkish invading forces ceasefire line. One could imagine what that meant in the context of the small size of Cyprus. When this and other absurd Turkish demands were rejected Ankara launched operation Attila II.

Mutatis mutandis, Erdogan’s demand for a thirty-kilometre security zone along Turkey’s border with Syria is a spitting image of the same Turkish tactic employed in the 1974 invasion of Cyprus. Thus, in the long term, such a broad security zone, if established, will consolidate Ankara’s control on foreign territory, in this case Syria.

The Turkish annexation of Alexandretta (Iskenderun) is another case point: in 1937 France, the colonial power in control of this Syrian territory, naively decides to let the Turks administer the Alexandretta region. The following year it is declared autonomous and in 1939 the world powers recognize Alexandetta’s annexation to Turkey. Consequently, Alexandretta becomes Hatay Province within the Republic of Turkey. Ironically, in 1974 the East Mediterranean port of Alexandretta serves as the hub to launch the invasion in Cyprus!

Is there a lesson learnt for the corridors of power in London, Paris, Washington and Moscow with regard to Turkish grand strategy?

However, the fiasco of Western diplomacy is not surprising. First, it is evident that De Mistura does not enjoy the support of even the main participants of the negotiation process. For many months, he failed to find common ground between the Syrian authorities and the opposition. Perhaps De Mistura did not aspire to this, but his pronounced desire to “take into account” Washington’s interests turned against this experienced diplomat. He was no longer trusted in Damascus and Ankara.

Many representatives of other delegations made life easier for De Mistura: European and Saudi diplomats, instead of painstaking searching for a compromise, unequivocally took the side of the Syrian armed opposition. This fact, in turn, allowed opponents of Bashar Assad to put forward preliminary conditions for negotiations, although nothing of the kind had been expected before. Moreover, the insurgents once again began stubbornly to demand the immediate resignation of the Syrian leader. It is unlikely that this behaviour of Western politicians can be called wise – the government of Syria was confronted with an unrealizable ultimatum.

At the same time, neither the US administration nor the governments of European countries bothered to send real deans of diplomacy to these talks. It is difficult to say exactly guided Western policy. Perhaps Washington wanted to underline to the Syrians their unenviable place: that neither the government delegation nor the opposition representatives had any illusions that their fate ultimately was of no interest to influential diplomats. It seems to be true that neither the Americans nor the Europeans aimed at settling the Syrian conflict peacefully. The Geneva Talks format could only be interpreted as a distracting maneuver. Western diplomats were simply tasked to engage in procrastinating techniques in anticipation of US military victory over Assad. In any case, the Geneva dialogue faltered – the interlocutors did not develop a single practical solution option to the intractable Syrian question.

Many experts agree with this point of view’: they compare the Geneva talks to a “stillborn child”.

“The Geneva format is a topic that can be maintained more ritually, based on the fact that it is under the auspices of the UN. Until the decision to abandon negotiations in Geneva is taken, the US and its European partners will continue to drag this senseless structure further, even if it means carrying it on their own hump. Hiding behind its own illusions, Washington does not want to admit the obvious: not only the Syrian opposition, but even Turkey, its NATO ally, refers to the Geneva process with an unconcealed grin”, noted one of experts.

Meanwhile, against the background of the apparent failure of the talks in Geneva, Russia, Iran and Turkey jointly created a much more effective platform for resolving the Syrian conflict. On the initiative of their respective leaders, a series of meetings with the participation of leading diplomats-representatives of all interested parties took place in Astana in January 2017. By now, seven full-fledged negotiating rounds have already been held. The results are really impressive: within the framework of the “Astana process” for the first time, Moscow, Tehran and Ankara managed to bring to the negotiating table the irreconcilable enemies: the representatives of Bashar Assad and the Syrian armed opposition. This fact on its own constitutes an achievement of colossal proportions if one takes into account that the opposing sides rejected the slightest possibility of a peaceful dialogue hitherto.

This is not to say Moscow, Tehran and Ankara are trying to solve every issue at once. Putin, Rouhani and Erdogan are well aware that the settlement of the Syrian conflict is a long and difficult process. However, as they say, the road will be mastered by the wayfarer. Laborious and hard work began: the presidents and foreign ministers of the three countries developed step by step the principles and conditions for the settlement of the civil war in Syria. In May a major breakthrough was achieved: the creation of four de-escalation zones for the first time in seven years. Consequently, truce was established on a large part of the Syrian territory.

Finally, during the Sochi talks in November, the presidents of Russia, Iran and Turkey agreed on a gradual transition to peace in Syria. The heads of state reached an agreement on holding a congress of the Syrians with the participation of all the conflicting parties. At the same time, Moscow does not play at give-away. Putin unequivocally let Assad know that the Kremlin expects from Damascus readiness for concessions and compromise.

Meanwhile, Washington continues to insist that the main issues of the Syrian settlement must continue to be resolved in the Geneva Talks. But it is despair – instead of really contributing to the establishment of peace in Syria, American diplomats continue to repeat the same annoying mantras.

Millions of Syrian citizens have become the victims of the civil war in this country: hundreds of thousands of refugees were forced to seek shelter in other countries. Lebanon, Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, Germany, Greece … The list is by no means complete; scores of countries took responsibility for saving the lives of Syrians who fled from the war zone.

How many innocent people lost their lives to this day? It is impossible to count. Most of them found their life’s abrupt end under the fire of the warring sides. For those perished it does not really matter whose shell or bomb or mortar hit their home, the last shelter and hope for salvation. Many of the dead wanted to escape the war zones, alas no humanitarian corridors were available.

Much criticism has been directed on the government of Syria and on the contingent of the Russian Armed Forces during the operation against terrorists in Aleppo and its suburbs. Practically every day, Syrians have been subjected to unthinkable accusations claiming the use of chemical weapons, cluster ammunitions, shells and aerial white phosphorus bombs … White Helmets, who now are known for their provocative prefabricated activities, “demonstrated” horrific photos of victims of the Syrian Army and Russian air strikes. They launched a powerful propaganda campaign against Syria and Russia around the world not least in the UN. Only after the liberation of Aleppo, where documentary evidence about their provocative work was found, their anti-Russian hysteria practically ceased.

It is also indicative that practically from the beginning of the internal political conflict in Syria, the London based so-called Syrian Human Rights Observatory has started operating on the international information field. It is headed by Rami Abderrahman, who was unknown in journalist circles at that time. However, for the past ten years the British Foreign Office has hired Mr. Abderrahman. He has ever since been vehemently exhuming his hate of President Bashar Al Assad.

This dissident has been levelling accusations of crimes against the Syrian government and the leadership of Russia. In true fact both the Assad government and Moscow have been liquidating international terrorist mercenaries in his homeland. If one bothers to calculate Rami Abderrahman’s prefabricated data about dead civilians as a result of the Syrian government’s and Russia’s air strikes, the total figure may exceed one million.

But what happened recently is difficult to understand. All of a sudden, Abderrahman began to shed light on civilian population losses as a result of “friendly” strikes of the Western coalition and, in particular, the consequences of the US Air Force bombings.

Abderrahman estimated that during the entire six-year period of the war in Syria, 1954 civilians were killed by the coalition strikes, of which 456 were children. Only from May 23 to June 23, 2017, 472 civilian casualties were victims of air strikes of the US Air Force, of which 137 were children. At the same time, the main losses fell on Rakka and Deir ez-Zor. For the period from April 23 to May 23, 2017, 225 people were killed by American air strikes.

In the latest reports on the Syrian conflict he published, Abderrahman not only restrains himself with regard to the results of the bombings of the Russian air squadrons, but on several occasions furthermore, he stresses the precision and accuracy of the destruction of the terrorists’ land-based targets. Therefore the terrorists are most afraid of the actions of Russian strike aircraft and, according to testimonies of the captured terrorists, they are losing heart at the sight of Russian fighter planes flying over their positions.

However, an American representative of the Western Coalition Command told a French news agency correspondent at a recent briefing in Baghdad: “Our forces are acting with precision. Our targets are permanent and there are no victims among civilians.” Well, maybe someday some researcher will be able to ascertain how many civilians became victims of direct attacks by the US Artillery and Air Force in Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Yemen … It is unlikely that the results will appease the international community. And it is also unlikely that these results will be published.

The latest chemical attack in Khan Shayk Hun, in Syria’s Idlib Governorate reportedly caused the deaths of at least seventy civilians and possibly injured more than two hundred. The reported chemical weapons attack took place on the 4^th of April.

The Director-General of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) had informed that the OPCW-United Nations Joint Investigative Mechanism was gathering and analysing information from all available sources, and would be prepared to deploy a team at the earliest opportunity.

Speaking at the Security Council emergency meeting on the day after the attack (5 April 2017) Syria’s permanent representative to the UN directly accused certain Security Council permanent members. He said that some Council members ‘had made statements today that proved unequivocally that Syria was the victim of two aggressions:  first, an attack by the Council’s permanent members; and second, a proxy attack by armed terrorist groups operating under their instructions.

Mr. Mounzer Mounzer added: Both seemed to have an appetite for fabricating information and rejected all false claims and allegations that the Syrian army had used chemical weapons in Khan Shayk Hun.  The Government did not possess such weapons in any form, he stressed declaring:  We have never used them and we will never use them.

He emphasized that while Syria had worked with OPCW and honoured all its obligations under the Convention, some Council members, as well as Turkey, continued to levy false against Damascus, in addition to blackmailing Syria and its allies, obstructing peace talks and ending all prospects for a political solution to the crisis — even if children paid the price.  Recalling his country’s expression of concern over possession of chemical weapons by terrorist groups during last March talks in Geneva, he also drew attention to more than 90 letters that the Syrian Government had addressed to the Council, the Joint Investigative Mechanism and other bodies, containing documented evidence that Da’esh (ISIS) possessed toxic chemicals obtained from Turkey.

The Syrian representative pointed out that in this regard the real beneficiaries of the use of chemical weapons were the very countries that had advocated regime change for long years.

Mr. Mounzer placed squarely the responsibility on the former colonial power of Syria. He pointed the finger to France, in particular, as being responsible for a number of barbaric massacres in Syria last year, as well as the recent air strike in Deir ez-Zor which had claimed the lives of many civilians.

It is not an unfair inference to suspect France, seconded by the UK and the US, as the prime non-movers – or in other words breaks – to the international process of thorough investigation of the latest chemical weapons attack in Syria.

In addition, the refusal of the OPCW and the rest of the international bodies to examine the evidence provided by Damascus on Ankara’s aiding and abetting chemical attacks by ISIS in Syria does not bode well for the prospects of achieving peace in the troubled Arab country. Neither does it bode any better for Turkey’s credibility in the talks aimed at achieving a comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus problem.

If anything Turkey’s feeding of ISIS with toxic chemicals in order to attack civilian Syrian population proves one more time that Ankara is not just only a dishonest broker as far as regional conflicts are concerned but that Turkey’s government should be investigated and punished for yet another committed war crime …

In Germany, Die Zeit rated Johnson’s move as a sheer miscalculation. The German newspaper commented that: “When UK Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson proposed to impose new sanctions on Russia amid the situation in Syria, he hoped to receive an ovation from other EU countries or at least their approval. However, his calculation proved wrong.”

Does Boris Johnson and the policy makers in London have such a short memory with regard to Syria? It is rather unlikely. After all, it was them: the Brits (with the French) as the world’s then powerful colonial powers which carved out the borders of today Syria hundred years ago or so. The British Foreign and Commonwealth Office has a strong hand in Middle East affairs. It cannot be operating on short institutional memory. It is out of the question. Thus it is much more likely that the political head of the FCO acts on a selective memory basis designed to serve his purpose of keeping Russia out of the international loop whenever and wherever this proves possible. Alas, Boris unholy mission proved impossible for yet another time as both the host Italy and Germany refused to become his tail end and blocked London’s maneuvers aimed at isolating Russia. Rome and Berlin seem to have chosen the road of common sense, prudence, engagement and respect of the other as opposed to the unethical attitude of unilateralism, confrontation and bellicosity preached by perfidious Boris.

For the sake of our readers let us recount the events of 2013 that led to the decommissioning of the Syrian chemical weapons stockpile. The destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons began in September 2013 on the basis of several international agreements with Damascus. Those agreements stipulated an initial destruction deadline of 30 June 2014.

The UN Security Council Resolution 2118 (27 September 2013) required Syria to assume responsibility for and follow a timeline for the destruction of its chemical weapons and its chemical weapon production facilities. The resolution bound Syria to the implementation plan presented in a decision of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). Accordingly, the OPCW declared Chemical Weapons (CW) were shipped out of Syria for destruction (23 June 2014). The destruction of the most dangerous CWs was performed at sea aboard the Cape Ray, a vessel of the US Maritime Administration‘s Ready Reserve Force, crewed with U.S. civilian merchant mariners. The actual destruction operations, performed by a team of U.S. Army civilians and contractors, destroyed 600 metric tons of chemical agents in forty-two days.

It should be noted that the CW agreements emerged when the US and France headed a coalition of countries on the verge of carrying out air strikes on Syria in response to the 21 August 2013 Ghouta CW attacks. To avoid a military intervention, the US, Russia and Syria agreed to the Framework for Elimination of Syrian Chemical Weapons (14 September 2013). The Framework called for the elimination of Syria‘s CW stockpiles by mid-2014. Syria agreed to accede to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) and to the destruction of its chemical weapons stockpiles.

Hence London’s claim that Bashar Al Assad carried out the attack seems hollow: Assad disposed of his chemical weapons arsenal in 2013 under the afore-mentioned international agreements. To be sure which forces carried out the latest CW attack the internationally community ought to investigate also the ISIS and other terrorist organizations operating on Syrian soil!