Virginia Senator Richard Black has described the ‘safe’ zone which the United States and Turkey seek to establish in the north of Syria as an ‘occupied’ zone, stressing that this move is prohibited by the International law.
In an interview with Syria Times e-newspaper, the senator said that the actions of the US ignore the fact that this is not the imaginary land known as “Kurdistan.” It is Syria.
“The idea of a “no-fly zone” was intended to facilitate an all-out attack on Syria,” the Senator asserted, adding that Washington wants to preserve the Kurdish-run pocket in northern Syria in order to inhibit trade between Iran and Syria.
Following is the full text of the interview:
ST: Can the US and Turkey establish a ‘safe’ zone in the north of Syria?
Sen. Black : The US and Turkey disagree over the dimensions of any “safe” zone in northern Syria. Turkey would like to double the size of the zone proposed by the United States. The fact that the United States and Turkey are increasingly hostile powers makes cooperation very tenuous.
Establishment of an occupied zone within Syria is, of course, prohibited by international law. It seems that international law has been disregarded so frequently that it is losing its validity across the globe.
Turkey will never accept the permanent establishment of a Kurdish State in Northern Syria. Turkey will expand its control, over time, until the so-called Kurdish State disappears. The United States cannot establish a Kurdish State without an unending military commitment to occupy Northern Syria.
It is important to remember that Kurds comprise a distinct minority of the population of Northeast Syria. The dominant population are Arabs. It is unfair to the Arab population to force them to live under Kurdish domination. Already, there has been considerable friction with the Christian Arab population in the region. Kurds have closed a number of Christian schools which functioned independently under the Syrian government.
There has been much unrest among Arab Muslims who chafe under Kurdish minority rule. Raqqa is by far the largest city in Northeast Syria. It is almost entirely an Arab city. Nonetheless, the proposed Kurdish state would force Syrian Arabs to submit to a Kurdish minority who are not even present in Raqqa.
The actions of the US ignore the fact that this is not the imaginary land known as “Kurdistan.” It is Syria. When it was governed by Syria, the region was free of terrorist activity and Kurds presented no threat to Turkey. The same could be said of Iraq before it was also invaded. It was the invasion of Iraq, followed by the invasion of Syria, which generated ISIS and all the other terrorist activity plaguing the region today.
ST: Why does Washington help Turkey establish this zone?
Sen. Black: Elements of the Washington deep state continue to dream of overthrowing the legitimate Syrian government led by President Bashar al-Assad. In order to placate Turkey, they must insulate them from the perceived threat of Kurdish terror. Washington wants to preserve the Kurdish-run pocket in northern Syria in order to inhibit trade between Iran and Syria. Additionally, the United States hopes to deprive the Kurdish people of oil and agricultural production generated in the region. That oil and food have always provided electricity, transportation, industrial power, and food supplies to the entire Syrian nation. The strategic objective is to impoverish the Syrian people by depriving the nation of these essential products while giving them to the small Kurdish minority in Syria.
ST: What will be the repercussions of such move?
Sen. Black: None of these problems would exist if the United States would permit the Syrian Government to reoccupy its sovereign territory in the north. The Syrian Government could quickly arrange to replace all Kurdish troops near the border with Turkey. At the same time, Syrian Kurdish soldiers could be redirected to guard the ISIS prison camps, which hold about ten thousand prisoners today. This would benefit the entire region by helping to feed the people, rebuild the country, and reduce military tensions throughout the region. It would promote regional trade, which would lift millions from poverty.
ST: Since the start of war on Syria, Turkey has announced several times that it will establish a safe zone in the north of Syria, why is it doing that?
Sen. Black: Proposed safe zones in Northern Syria have taken various forms. Senator John McCain wanted to establish a “no-fly zone.” He intended to use that as a pretext for a gigantic aerial attack against Syria, just as he had done in Libya. You may recall, that in 2011, the establishment of a “no-fly zone,” was followed by an immediate, devastating aerial campaign that killed hundreds of thousands of Libyans and destroyed the major population centers of the nation. After that was done to Libya, terrorists engaged in massive slaughter and western powers looted the national treasury, stealing 149 tons of gold, 2,000 tons of silver, and over half a trillion US dollars and Euros. So, the idea of a “no-fly zone” was intended to facilitate an all-out attack on Syria. Fortunately, that idea did not gain traction.
Turkey has also attempted to carve out Syrian territory to provide a safe haven for terrorists. Today, Turkey is massively supplying Tahrir al-Sham (Al-Qaeda in Syria) in Idlib Province with military vehicles, missiles, and ammunition. The Central Intelligence Agency has released supplies from its warehouses to assist in this endeavor.
If Turkey and the United States were successful in their efforts to carve out a terrorist state in Idlib Province, they would establish an Islamic Caliphate dominated by Abu Mohammad al-Julani, the head of Tahrir al-Sham (al-Qaeda in Syria). Having boasted about the US role in destroying the ISIS Caliphate, we ourselves will have established an al-Qaeda caliphate ruled by an “Especially Designated Global Terrorist” with a $10 million bounty on his head. If successful, it would be especially ironic that the United States, which lost three thousand dead in the terror attacks on the Twin Towers and Pentagon on 9/11, would become the nation responsible for the establishment of a permanent terrorist caliphate led by those same people.
It is also ironic that one-third of America’s national debt was incurred fighting wars of aggression against Middle Eastern nations, though not a single benefit has ever flowed to the American people or has ever enhanced our national security. Yet from almost its outset, Vice President Dick Chaney labeled war against the Middle East as “the long war.”
How was it that Dick Chaney and the Central Intelligence Agency understood the agonising longevity of these wars when the American people did not?
This leaves one to question whether the designers of American foreign policy have the faintest interest in the well-being of our nation or its people.