Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Syria: The country that has been suffering a two year long civil war
claiming over 100,000 lives, has garnered much public debate in the past weekâas congress
is expected to vote this week on whether to authorize the use of force in Syria. Joining
me today are two YaLa Young Leaders members, here to deal with the issue that is on everyone's mind:
Should an international military action be taken against the Assad Regime?
Joining me is Hiba from Lebanon, a graphic designer and freelance photographer. And Sahar, a student
from Paris studying Law and Political Science, originally from Morocco. Hiba - You are first.
Okay, I'm against an intervention on Syria, because it's basically not an international
intervention, it's basically an American intervention like the one that happened on Iraq and Afghanistan.
We all know what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan when the US intervened. They said that, the
USA said that there was a nuclear bomb or nuclear weapons in Iraq and that was basically
the cause of why they attacked Iraq. But then, when they attacked Iraq, it was a mess. They
killed people, there was like a huge negative site, and basically they didn't find any nuclear
bombs or weapons. After the USA left Iraq, it left about 10,000 employees working for
her in the country. I can say clearly that the US aims to intervene in Syria not because
of Assad, it's not because the killings of people done by Assad or by the revolution,
it's basically only because of the oil and gas. So it's basically a power battle for
her. And it's clear from Iraq and Afghanistan. Like, from my point of view I see that the USA only
wants to intervene in the places where there's oil or gas. And besides that, I am against
the intervention because it will affect on Lebanon too. Because as you all know, Lebanon
and Syria are like allies, since like forever, so an intervention on Syria will affect on
us too. There will be a war on both of us. And that's it, I guess. Sahar, would you like
to respond? Okay first, I would just like to remind everyone it is an international
intervention because in Amman it's not only the USA that came and said "we are going to
intervene", it was a coalition of British, French, American officials as well as Jordanian,
Turkish, Saudi and Qatari officials, with the rebels, discussing what they could aim
or not. So the problem is that, of course, you cannot intervene in the Middle East unless
you actually have the approval of the USA and you have the USA being sort of like a
chaperone of all of this. But, it's not only the USA going in. Of course, since then the
British kind of like, said "no" to the intervention, but it's not only the USA deciding where to
go. They are deciding the aims with the rebels, and they are deciding what they are going
to.. to aim at through air strikes. Second, since you spoke about, of course, the USA
intervening only when they have an interest. It's true, and we saw it with Iraq, it's also
true. Except that in Iraq, it was a normal state of... I mean things were going normally,
and all of a sudden the USA decided to invade it. Now, it's been two years and it's not
the first time that Syrians have claimed that al-Assad used chemical weapons. Already when
there was a siege on Homs in Baba Amr, they were claiming that chemical weapons were used.
Second, in Iraq nobody was holding banners saying "please USA, we want a no fly zone
on Iraq, come save us from Saddam", we never heard of this. The USA all of a sudden brought
all of this. But in Syria, protests... In protests, Syrian people were holding banners
asking the international community to act, to put a no fly zone on Syria. So it's not
coming out of nowhere, if I can say. Basically, the Syrian... Some Syrians have from the beginning
claimed that they would like help from outside. The third thing is that, of course there is
oil in Syria - it's in very very very minor quantity. I mean, it's almost... the USA have
more to lose by going to Syria solely for the little oil they have in the East and Kurdish
regions, rather than you know, going there and fighting. I mean, it's absolutely... They're
not going to make any profit out of it, because Syria has very very little oil compared to
the oil that the USA can have access to through Saudi Arabia and other countries. So really,
it is not worth it in terms of... I mean in financial terms to go in Syria just for the
little oil they have. Last thing is, of course Syria as I said is not the same thing as Iraq,
because a clash already started, you already have massacres, so yes of course when the
USA acted in Iraq there were horrible massacres, there were uses of chemical weapons that basically
destroyed whole regions of Iraq, and we can see it today in Fallujah, but in Syria...
All I'm asking is, can it possibly be any worse than what we already are witnessing
on the ground? Can it be worse than women and little girls being *** by the militias
of al-Assad? Can it be worse than civilians, hundreds of civilians dying everyday? Can
it be worse than 165 (thousand) dead, 100 political prisoners in al-Assad's jails? Can
it be any worse than this? Of course Iraq turned out to be a mess, the thing with Syria
(is that) it's already a mess, and it's all al-Assad's fault. And last thing, to conclude
on Lebanon, Lebanon is already involved. It's quite, I mean kind of like the Policy of the
Ostrich to kind of, like, say "no, Lebanon is going to fall down with Syria too". Lebanon
is already intervening in this because Hezbollah has been intervening in Syria since the beginning.
It's already sent soldiers, so Lebanon is already intervening.
Hiba, this your chance for a rebuttal to Sahar's comments, that Syria is not like Iraq. Okay. Well first I would
like to reply (to) Sahar about the evidence of using chemical weapons in Syria. What are
the evidence? Is it like, because they only had a video taking people lying on the floor?
Like, anyone can actually record that. Second of all, not all the Syrian people are supporters
of the so-called revolution. Even after having the.. this revolution, a lot of people whom
they were supporters of it have become supporters of Assad or just stayed on the side. So I
can actually say that half of the Syrian people are not supporters of the revolution. So you
can't say all of the Syrian people are supporting the revolution and supporting the intervention
in Syria. The banners... the people holding banners saying that "we want intervention",
it's the people who are supporting the revolution, not most of the Syrian people. And about the
using... about the oil in Syria, there is actually a huge amount of gas in Aleppo, and
that is where the real battle is going on. And as for the USA intervention, since when
did really the US cared about other what countries... whether other countries are with or against
this intervention? Because I heard just today that actually, Obama is... wants to perhaps
attack Syria without the "okay" from the other countries, if only the Congress said "yes"
to this intervention. Okay first I'll respond on the evidence of chemical weapons. I'd like
to say, maybe it would be good for people who are interested in seeing why the rebels
are saying there was use of chemical weapons to actually watch the videos that the rebels
are putting on YouTube. It's not just about filming people dead on the floor. The thing
with chemical weapons is that they leave... they leave, like, traces on human body, on
the skin of the dead, which can only be done by chemical weapons. As I said, it's not the
first time they claim that chemical weapons were used. And in other videos you can clearly
see dead children who have absolutely no bleeding in their body, they were not shot by bullets
or anything else, but their skin are showing proofs of the use of chemical weapons because
the skin was irritated by the chemical weapons. So it's not just about people lying on the
ground. The doctors have been showing, with details - of course the videos are very graphic,
so... In general videos of Syrians being dead are very graphic. But if you watch, they actually
show you why they claim chemical weapons were used. So that's for that claim of yours. Second,
when you say half of the Syrian people are not for the revolution, first, I ask myself...
I wonder where you take that number from. And I would personally would like to know
what half of the Syrian people think, and for that we would need free elections, which
hasn't taken place in Syria since 1961. Maybe it's time to let Syrians vote and know for
real what they actually want. And this is not going to happen under al-Assad. I'm sorry
to say this, but it seems pretty obvious to everyone. My third point about the gas
being present in Aleppo... I didn't say Syria doesn't have any resources, Syria does have
resources, but as I said it's very very minor compared to the other sources that the USA
can have access to. And for gas precisely, I'm asking you why would the USA go intervene
in Syria where it's such a boiling region, where they have so much to lose, and where
in fact they don't even want to get there, for the little gas. Even though it's a lot
in terms of financial... I mean financially for Syria it's a lot, but compared to other
gas resources in the region, why would they go to Syria when they could - I don't know
- for example, intervene in Lebanon which has had a feud with Israel over a huge huge
gas field in the Mediterranean Sea. Or, why would it go at war anyway, since they are
allies with Israel, who has discovered Tamar and Leviathan in Mediterranean Sea, which
are the biggest gas fields that have been discovered in the last decade. It's absolutely
ridiculous for the USA to go to Aleppo for the little gas there when their best ally
in the region has the biggest gas fields that have been discovered in the last decade? And
last thing about Obama, of course, it is stated that he will supposedly still intervene without
the support of British support and French support. Again, I'm reminding you that it
is done in agreement with rebels, and with Jordan officials, Turkish officials, Qatari
officials and Saudi officials. So just because Britain, Great Britain and France are... do
not want to intervene in the end, it doesn't mean that all of a sudden everybody just brushed
it off and only the EU/USA are going in. Thank you Sahar. Hiba, now it's time for your closing
argument. Give your view of in two sentences, three sentences, say what you really believe
and why you believe it. Well, I hope that there won't be a military intervention in
Syria, because this will affect on us in Lebanon and there will be a huge war in the area.
And I know that it's not, it's not as hard for the people who live outside the Middle
East to say "yes, go for the intervention" because they don't really understand and know
what does it mean for having war in our area. We have been living wars ever since I'm born.
I've lived Israeli wars, I've lived a part of the civil war, so it's not easy for us
to live... to keep on living these wars. So, I hope there won't be a military intervention.
Thank you Hiba. Sahar? Yes, I would just like to say that people have to think in terms
of humanist values. We are not in a day and age where we can claim we don't know what's
happening, or we didn't know that something might happen. I would like to say that there
are millions of refugees that have fled there, and they didn't choose to lose their houses,
they didn't choose to lose their families, they didn't want war either, but they... It's
just the reality and how things are, and they want freedom and dignity. And I would just
like to tell people that they have to inform themselves, they have to ask people on the
ground, they have to ask refugees, as for their personal experience and ask themselves if
in 30 years they will be able to bear the moral consequences of having taken stances
that directly or indirectly helped al-Assad in killing his own people, and killing civilians.
I am personally not ready to take... to bear that moral consequence. Especially after hearing
so many Syrian refugees who don't want war either, it's not like they want to live in
war. But I cannot bear that moral consequence, neither can they and neither should anyone
on earth, actually. Thank you very much Sahar, and I'd like to thank both of you for being
open today to discuss these issues. This week is going to be an interesting week, I'm sure.
Thank you.