Far from acting to prevent terrorism, the US and UK are actively promoting it in Syria to further their own interests in the region, writes Felicity Arbuthnot "The greatest crime since World War II has been US foreign policy" -- former US attorney-general Ramsey Clark On 4 May 2012, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon chaired a Security Council meeting entitled "Highlighting the Changing Nature and Character of the Scourge of Terrorism". This followed a ministerial-level meeting on "threats to international peace and security posed by terrorism". Ban's opening address underlined the importance of unity in tackling the problem. "By working together -- from strengthening law enforcement to tackling the underlying drivers of extremism -- we can greatly reduce this major threat to peace and security," he stated. Presumably, he did not encourage permanent members of the Security Council and other UN member states in funding terrorism or "extremism", since he continued by saying that "the Security Council reiterates its strong and unequivocal condemnation of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, committed by whomever and where ever and for whatever purposes, [stressing] that any terrorist acts are criminal and unjustifiable regardless of their motivation." The 13-page document further states that "the Security Council recognises the continued need to take measures to prevent and suppress the financing of terrorism and terrorist organisations and [reiterating] Member States obligations in this regard." It says that, "Member States shall refrain in their international relations from the threat of use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State," and that "the Security Council reiterates the obligation of Member States to refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or person involved in or associated with terrorist acts, including by suppressing recruitment of members of terrorist groups." US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice said that, "the threat of terrorism continued�ê� in spite of the death of Osama bin Laden" -- a US-sponsored act of terrorism the enormity of which had apparently escaped her. The US "condemned all terrorism" and would, she said, use all its powers, "including the power of our values�ê� to combat terrorism." It seems to have escaped her that children collecting firewood, farmers, families, youthful shepherds and goat herders and funeral and wedding parties die under US drones in their thousands in some parts of the world on orders directly from the US president. This is death by computer games, run by "operatives" thousands of miles away. Some "values". Quite some terrorism. Ambassador Raza Bashir Tarar, Pakistan's deputy permanent representative to the UN, said that "no country has suffered as much from terrorism as Pakistan." This is an ironic understatement, given that this US ally has been attacked, often daily, by the US. Sir Mark Lyall Grant, representing the UK, pledged his country's support in the fight against terrorism and thanked Saudi Arabia for its efforts. Like the US and UK, the latter is allegedly backing terrorists in the sovereign nation of Syria. Ban was also worried about rising militancy in the Sahel region of Africa. "In part because of the fallout from developments in Libya," he said. These "developments" saw widespread destruction and the lynching of a sovereign leader. Ban had apparently forgotten that the UN has vowed to "save succeeding generations from the scourge of war," given the operations that have been carried out under his stewardship. To read the whole of the UN document is to enter a world populated with people for whom reality has long since vanished. On 3 August, the Times of India confirmed what was already an open secret: "President Obama has signed a secret order authorising US support for rebels seeking to depose Syrian President Al-Assad's government... Obama's order, approved earlier this year and known as an intelligence 'finding', permits the CIA and other US agencies to provide support that could help the rebels oust President Al-Assad." On the same day, Britain's Foreign Secretary William Hague announced, using near identical words, an increase in support for the Syrian "opposition forces", including cash to train "citizen journalists" to get the word out about government atrocities in Syria. Translation: learn convincing lies and propaganda, photoshop, and add a few film sets to stage "demonstrations" and "atrocities." Remember the Libyan ones filmed in India, to give just one example? The UK Daily Mail quoted former British army commander Richard Kemp, a former member of the UK government's joint intelligence committee, as saying that "the UK government cannot give practical support to the rebels without a presence inside Syria, and any Foreign Office officials seeking to liaise with the opposition leaders would require close protection from Special Forces." On 5 August, US senators John McCain (Arizona) Lindsey O. Graham (South Carolina) and Joseph Lieberman (Connecticut) advised the US government to directly and openly provide assistance, including weapons, intelligence and training, to the Syrian insurgents. On 7 August, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, hurtling round the world like the proverbial headless chicken, threatening, lecturing, and ranting, talked of the urgency of planning for a "post-Assad Syria". Today, Hague has announced he is committing "an additional" five million pounds to the terrorists. Which begs the question: how much was the British government providing already? Another open secret has also come out: Turkey is training terrorists to go into Syria. Turkey, of course, is a NATO Member, and it is desperate to get into the European Union with its dying currency. It appears to be prepared to do anything to curry favour, the first figurative Turkey to vote for Christmas, with NATO and EU members. Veteran Russian politician Yevgeny Primakov is under no illusions about all this, and he has said that "mercenaries and volunteers from other states are fighting [Al-Assad] jointly with violent internal forces." While most Syrian opposition members are non-violent and want to see a peaceful resolution to the crisis, Washington has other ideas. "President Obama has given a direct order to the CIA to support the Syrian opposition," Primakov said. "That is flagrant interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign state, which does not endanger the United States or anyone else." Moreover, "Saudi Arabia and Qatar are funding militants. Turkey is giving them active support," and so are other regional countries. This would appear to be borne out by photographer John Cantile and his colleague, Dutch journalist Jeroen Oerlemans, kidnapped by "rebels" on 19 July and escaping a week later. Cantile told the BBC he had been held in a camp by 30 foreign extremists, including some from Britain and Pakistan. He stated that some of his captors were "young men with south London accents." He asserted that some of the insurgents could not speak Arabic, with around a dozen of his captors speaking English, out of whom nine had spoken with London accents. "There was not a Syrian in sight. This wasn't what I had expected," Cantile added. "Two of them were so anglicised they couldn't speak Arabic." This was confirmed by Oerlemans, who also said there were Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Chechens and other nationalities among them. Britain, seemingly, does not just fund terrorists; it also exports them. The Foreign Office confirmed the kidnapping, but declined to confirm that there had been British nationals amongst the criminals. Well, they wouldn't, would they? "The Security Council recognises the urgent need for additional efforts to be made at national, regional and international levels in order to prevent the illicit proliferation [of] materials of all types [which could] fuel terrorist activities," states the Security Council document. These are utterly meaningless 13 pages, as Security Council member states are now funding terrorism against a sovereign nation and government. The Syrian ambassador to the UN, Bashar Jafari, reminded listeners of UK prime minister David Cameron's reaction to last year's UK riots. "Cameron said that 'when it is related to national security, don't talk to me about human rights. We care about the human rights of our people.' There are third parties in the domestic crisis in Syria." Mark Lyall Grant called Jafari's remarks "utterly grotesque." Another flight from reality. In an article that appeared in the UK newspaper The Daily Telegraph at the same time, the eminent British-based surgeon Fawaz Akhras, Al-Assad's father in law, said that "when the London riots burst out, Cameron said he would bring the army out. How would you compare [the riots] to Homs? What would you do? Just watch them killing? There is a responsibility to ensure the security of your people." In London now because of the Olympics there are ground-to air-missiles on domestic buildings, warships with an array of armaments at different venues, 20,000 soldiers, and armed police. The lethal weaponry deployed in Britain's most-populated region could, if used, wipe out thousands. The US-UK axis and others funding terrorists are blaming Syria's government for the situation in the country. But in 1980 the US boycotted the Moscow Olympics because the former USSR had invaded and occupied Afghanistan. Think about the similarity. The writer is a journalist with special knowledge of Iraq.
