Regions

We in social networks

Facebook
ВКонтакте
Twitter

Events Calendar

Загрузка...

America has brought into play the policy of double standards

05.09.2013 13:43

On August 31, 2013, the U.S. President Barack Obama announced the decision to apply to the Congress for authorization of a military attack on Damascus. The U.S. president said that he could do without it, but considered that it would be "more properly".

According to Obama, the regime of Bashar al-Assad must be punished for the use of chemical weapons on August 21, near Damascus. The U.S. president is convinced: the use of chemical weapons in Syria, "constitutes a serious threat to national security" of the U.S. and its allies in the Middle East.

The head of the White House has complained that the UN "is completely paralyzed and does not want to bring Assad to justice." He noted that the United States is expecting from the UN "not only to investigate" the cases of use of chemical weapons, but also to counteract such behavior.

Against the background of this statement on August 26, 2013, Foreign Policy magazine published an article evidencing that Washington response in a differentiated way to events in the Middle East, including the use of chemical weapons in the mentioned region. In fact, double standards are put to use again.

According to the article authored by journalists Shane Harris and Matthew Aid, who wrote the book "War of intelligence" about the history of the United States NSA, it was well documented that the United States provided military assistance to Saddam Hussein at the time when he actively used chemical agents against Iran.

According to the authors, in the late 1980's, "the U.S. military intelligence community knew about the repeated use of chemical warfare nerve agents - much more dangerous than those that were recently applied in Syria, but took no action to put an end to chemical attacks." For example, "in 1988, in the closing stage of the Iran-Iraq war, the U.S., thanks to the information obtained by the reconnaissance satellite, came to the conclusion that Iran could get a big strategic advantage by using a breach in the defense of Iraq. According to declassified CIA archives, through the military intelligence the U.S. "immediately passed to Iraq all the necessary data on the deployment of Iranian forces," with the full awareness that Saddam Hussein's army would use chemical weapons including sarin nerve gas.

The authors note that the use of chemical weapons helped to dramatically change the situation in favor of Iraq, and to bring Iran to the negotiating table. Thus, success of the Ronald Reagan administration's long-term course for ensuring the victory of Iraq was guaranteed.

For a long time, U.S. officials denied that they connived at the chemical attacks by Iraq, saying that Iraq did not warn them about these attacks. However, the former military attache in Baghdad Colonel Rick Francona, said in an interview: "The Iraqis never told us that they intended to use nerve gas. There was no sense, since we knew about it."

Further, the authors argue, referring to the same declassified CIA documents and testimonies of retired intelligence officers that the United States has always possessed strong evidence of Iraqi chemical attacks, which began in 1983. At that time, Iran publicly declared the illegal use of chemical weapons, but had no evidence to incriminate Iraq. For example, it is known that in March 1988, Baghdad used the nerve gas in the Kurdish village of Halabja. In April of the same year, sarin was used against Iranian troops south-east of Basra, which allowed the Iraqis to win a major victory.

True, the U.S. authorities did not agree long to provide Iraq with intelligence information as the CIA and the State Department considered Saddam Hussein 'an object of anathema' and his officials as 'bandits'. However, every time faced with defeat of the Iraqi army they repeatedly used the policy of double standards, did not hesitate to support Saddam Hussein's regime that was profitable for them at that time.

"The Reagan Administration has judged it would be best not to interfere with attacks if they help turn the tide of the war." In this case, Ronald Reagan left a note in the relevant document: "Iran's victory is unacceptable!"

In the CIA documents and testimonies of retired intelligence officers, there is evidence that "it appears that, high-ranking U.S. officials were regularly kept informed on the scale of attacks with the use of nerve gas." The authors conclude: "These documents are equivalent to the official recognition of America's involvement in a number of the worst chemical attacks in history." According to the testimony of Colonel Francona, in 1988, four times the Iraqis massively used sarin.

The declassified archive documents about the U.S. aid to Saddam Hussein in the war against Iran indicate that the U.S follows the policy of double standards and do not always comply with universal standards of conduct and international agreements. In addition, for Washington, "the governments serving the U.S.' interests are good, and bad are those who interfere with it." If the use of chemical weapons benefits the United States, it will not only keep silent, but will also help, as in the case of Iraq, with all means at their disposal. This is clearly confirmed by the events in Syria, where the U.S. uses chemical weapons as a pretext for unleashing aggression against the unwanted regime.