Page 2 of
2 Syria bristles at US
charges By Sami
Moubayed
North Koreans strongly
objected to the accusations, and harshly condemned
the Israeli attack on Syria. The Syrians claimed
these accusations were fabricated by Washington
for political reasons, mainly targeting Pyongyang
rather than Damascus.
The international
media were busy justifying the attack - aggression
on a sovereign state - rather than condemning it.
The North Korea story started when Andrew Semmel
of the US Department of State claimed Syria "might
have" obtained nuclear equipment and noting "there
are North Korean people there [in Syria]. There is
no question about that."
Originally in
2004, it was rumored that the Pakistani scientist
Abdul Qadir Khan, who
provided gas centrifuges and uranium hexafluoride
to North Korea, operated from Syria. No evidence
was ever provided that the Khan network worked in
Syria, and several people at the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) were quoted saying
they had no information in that regard. Bolton,
then under secretary for arms control, trumpeted
the accusations against Syria. Mohammad ElBaradei,
the head of the IAEA, was brought on board, and in
June 2004 said, "We haven't gotten any piece of
information on why we should be concerned about
Syria." Journalists in the US jumped on the
story, claiming that Kim Jong-il was hiding his
weapons in Syria; forgetting that the North
Koreans trusted nobody- certainly not the Syrians,
with their nuclear technology. Some newspapers in
the US said that days before the attack on Syria,
North Korean material labeled as "cement" had
unloaded in Syria. This material was supposedly
nuclear equipment. Joseph Cirincione, author of
Bomb Scare: The history and future of Nuclear
Weapons and senior fellow and director of
nuclear policy at the Center for American
Progress, noted, "This story is nonsense!" Syria's
ambassador to Washington Imad Mustapha labeled it
as "ridiculous".
This time, although many
analysts were skeptical of the American "evidence"
(all citing the faulty information used by Collin
Powell, the US secretary of state, to justify the
invasion of Iraq in 2003), the IAEA said it
"deplores the fact" that Washington had been
silent about the suspected nuclear site in Syria.
Why had the Americans kept their silence
for six months? The IAEA was equally critical of
Israel for bombing the site before inspectors
could investigate the intelligence report's
authenticity. In terms of the nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), to which Syria is
a signatory, the Vienna-based IAEA should be
informed of such findings and it alone has the
authority to inspect suspected nuclear sites.
The IAEA added, "Under the NPT, the agency
has a responsibility to verify any proliferation
allegations in a non-nuclear weapon state party to
the NPT." It must be noted that Israel has not
signed the NPT, while North Korea did, then
violated the agreement, and withdrew. Syria has
repeatedly complained about Israel's own nuclear
program and refused to sign "additional protocols
of inspection" by the IAEA (which are voluntary)
until Israel signs the NPT.
Rising to the
defense of Syria was Scott Ritter, the famous
chief UN inspector in Iraq from 1991-1998, who
gave the Iraqis a clean bill of health with regard
to WMDs in 2003 and has been very critical of the
US decision to invade Baghdad on faulty
intelligence. Ritter wrote, "Even if the US
intelligence is accurate ... Syria had committed
no crime, and Israel had no legal justification to
carry out its attack."
Bound by the NPT,
Syria is required to provide information "as early
as possible before nuclear material is introduced
to a new facility". There is no evidence, however,
that Syria had reached - or even intended to reach
- that stage when the Israeli planes flew into its
airspace. Ritter adds, "While vexing, the Syrian
position is totally in keeping with its treaty
obligations, and so it is Syria, not Israel, that
was in full conformity with international law at
the time of Israel's September 6, 2007 attack."
The IAEA will investigate the latest US
allegations, saying, "We will treat this
information with the seriousness it deserves and
will investigate the veracity of the information."
Syria, seemingly very confident, has shown no
objection, upholding its commitments to the NPT.
Speaking to the Qatari daily al-Watan,
Assad downplayed the accusations, saying: "Is it
possible that there is a nuclear site [in Syria]
that is not guarded by anti-aircraft guns? A
nuclear site? Watched by satellite? In the middle
of Syria? In the desert? And in open space?! How
can there be a nuclear site when satellites
monitor ever single meter that you build? They are
searching for an alibi."
He added that
neither the Israelis nor the US knew what the site
that was hit in September 2007 actually was,
noting, "They hit a site that was empty!" When
asked how Syria would respond, both to the actual
air invasion and the US accusations, he said, "A
response doesn't have to be a missile for a
missile. Or a bomb for a bomb. Or a bullet for a
bullet. In reality we have ways with which we can
respond; they understand what we mean."
In
addition to Powell's story at the UN, another has
surfaced regarding US intelligence over North
Korea's nuclear activities. In 1998, US
intelligence obtained images of a project at
Kumchang-ri (northwest of Yongbyon), and claimed
this to be a nuclear facility. Kim Yong-il agreed,
under pressure, to allow inspection of the site,
in exchange for aid in building a new potato
factory in North Korea. Inspectors found nothing,
prompting Robert Carlin, a North Korea expert at
the CIA, to note the "endemic weakness" in US
intelligence.
The Americans, therefore,
got it wrong on North Korea in 1998. They got it
wrong on Iraq in 2002-2003. They got it wrong on
Lebanon in 2006, during the Israeli war on
Hezbollah, and again in 2007, when they believed
Syria was behind the Sunni fundamentalists at
Naher al-Bared. There is no evidence to prove that
they have it right this time, on Syria in 2008.
But if they want to push through with such
a story - as in the case with the WMDs of Iraq -
in what remains of George W Bush's term at the
White House, then nothing in the world can prevent
them from doing so. It would not really matter
whether Syria is innocent; this would fall neatly
in line with everything that has happened between
Syria and the US since 2003.
British
writer Hector Hugh Munro, known by his pen name
Saki, once said, "A little inaccuracy sometimes
saves a lot of explanations." That probably best
sums up why Israeli planes invaded Syrian
airspace, with the approval of the United States,
and fired at certain targets within Syria.
Sami Moubayed is a Syrian
political analyst.
(Copyright 2008
Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please
contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
