Intervention In Mali But Not Syria: Decision Exposes Western Hypocrisy
26 January 2013By Tariq Alhomayed
What is this rule that applies to Mali but does not
apply to al-Assad's crimes against the Syrians?
We cannot blame those who are amazed at France's
decision to intervene militarily in Mali after nine
months of Islamist militants controlling parts of the
country, whilst for the past two years the entire
world has turned a blind eye to al-Assad's terrorism
which has killed around 50,000 Syrians so far, not to
mention the dire humanitarian situation faced by the
rest of the country's citizens.
According to its President, Francois Hollande:
"France, at the request of the President of Mali, and
respecting the United Nations' charter, committed
itself yesterday to support the Malian army against
terrorist aggression that threatens all of West
Africa". Yet the question here is what is this rule
that applies to Mali but does not apply to al-Assad's
crimes against the Syrians? If the President of Mali
requested France alone to mobilize, with Western
blessing, then what is to stop someone saying that
that Iran, for example, could intervene to protect al-Assad
at the request of the "Syrian President", who has
constantly claimed that the rebels are terrorists?
This is truly a distressing matter. My intention here
is not to detract from the plight of Mali and its
citizens, or to belittle their sufferings, but the
story here lies in ignoring the suffering of the
Syrians; a plight that cannot be sanctioned by any
logic, law or religion. It is strange that Francois
Hollande says that the intervention operation in Mali
will last "as long as necessary", and that "France
will always be there when the rights of a people,
those of Mali who want to live freely and in a
democracy, are at issue". The question here is: Is
this not also the demand of the Syrians who have been
confronting the worst kinds of terrorism carried out
by the al-Assad regime, amidst an international
silence, for the past two years? When I talk about an
international silence here, I do not mean the Syrians
need words, rather they need action. It is
inconceivable for the Syrian rebels to be left without
support in the face of a criminal regime that does not
hesitate to use aircraft and missiles, with clear
Iranian backing, whilst the West rushes to save Mali.
For the sake of argument, some may point to the
difficult international political scene with regards
to Syria, and argue that external intervention would
only complicate matters. However, the reality in front
of us says that diplomatic efforts, whether at the
level of talks with the Russians or through the
Security Council, are not serious. We cannot say that
everyone has done all they can. The world, including
our region, has sat waiting in a vacuum created by the
US President and his electoral priorities over the
past two years, and everyone is still waiting for a
decisive US stance. Meanwhile, al-Assad is not waiting
for anything; his crimes against the Syrians are
ongoing and he is even coming out proposing
initiatives on his terms.
To conclude, the justification provided by the French
for their military intervention in Mali is nothing but
a condemnation of France itself, along with the
international community, for failing to intervene and
support the rebels in Syria, who are suffering crimes
more heinous than what is happening in Mali. Al-Assad
does not only represent a threat to the Syrians, but
also to the region as a whole and the Mediterranean,
which of course impacts upon the security of France
and the West.
Tariq Alhomayed is the Editor-in-Chief of Asharq
Al-Awsat, the youngest person to be appointed that
position. He holds a BA degree in Media studies from
King Abdul Aziz University in Jeddah, and has also
completed his Introductory courses towards a Master's
degree from George Washington University in Washington
D.C. He is based in London.
©
EsinIslam.Com
Add Comments